Retro Movie Review: Swing Kids

"It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing."

In the early 1990s there was a popular resurgence of swing music. Many bands like Big Bad Voodoo Daddy, Cherry Poppin' Daddies, and Squirrel Nut Zippers quickly became famous and many young people learned how much of a thrill Swing dancing could be.

With such resurgence of Swing popularity, it only makes sense that Hollywood would attempt to capitalize on such a fad. You'd expect that whatever came of such theatrical effort would be shallow and corny, much like all of the wannabe Star Wars movies of the 80s… or Dirty Dancing. Instead, the movie that appeared to be cashing in on a flight of passing fancy, Swing Kids, is much, much deeper than the title implies.

In the late 1930s, Germany was undergoing some major changes as the National Socialist (better known as Nazi) party led by Adolf Hitler was tightening its grip on German society. At the same time, Jitter-bug dancing young Germans were relishing in English and American Jazz culture and were doing everything they could to embrace it in their clothing, speech, music and dancing.

Three close friends involved in this movement are Peter Müller (played by Robert Sean Leonard - House, Dead Poets Society), Thomas Berger (played by Christian Bale - Batman Begins, Empire of the Sun), and Arvid (played by Frank Whaley - Career Opportunities, Pulp Fiction). Peter and Thomas are heavily involved in the dancing scene while Arvid - sidelined because of a lame foot - is the temperamental, intellectual musician of the bunch.

One day, in a misguided attempt to bring some joy into the moody Arvid's life, Peter and Thomas attempt to steal a radio that Peter believes was wrongfully taken from a suspected "traitor" and given to a woman giving comfort to the district supervisor. The poorly conceived, attempted theft fails and Peter is left holding the radio.

In order to avoid serving time in a labor camp, Peter is giving the "choice" to join the Hitler Jugend (Hitler Youth) - the Nazi youth organization that is the polar opposite of everything the Swing Kid movement stands for. Shortly after joining, Peter's self-disgust is swallowed-up by Thomas, who in a show of solidarity, joins the Hitler Jugend, or the H.J., as well.

Quickly Peter and Thomas are indoctrinated in the philosophies of the Third Reich and their loyalties to their family and friends are tested. Arvid, who is not only excluded from the H.J. because of his handicap but also because of his undeviating commitment to the accepting and free culture of the Swing Kids, becomes the catalyst that tests what Peter and Thomas really believe about themselves, their friends, and their family, and what they would be willing to do or sacrifice for them.

Swing Kids is a movie that I believe was hurt in the box office by two things. One is the impression that it was just feeding a fad, and the other is the name. While "Swing Youth" is the actual name the Swing movement of the time had, I believe the title, Swing Kids, gives the movie a juvenile feel while the subject matter is anything but.

This movie deals with serious themes; such as how important it is to know who you are and what you stand for. Peter and Thomas joined the H.J. more on a whim than anything else. Little did they know how completely brainwashed they could become if they didn't already have a strong foundation they could cling to. Without knowing what he stood for, Peter becomes a tool used by both parts of the struggle between good and evil in Nazi Germany. Only when it's nearly too late does he realize which side of the struggle he wants to be on.

Swing Kids is a must-see movie that reminds us how easy it is to be taken in by ideologies that on the surface appear to be virtuous, but underneath reveal philosophies that make the uninitiated recoil… reminds us to make sure we know what we are committing ourselves to before we throw in our lot with anyone or anything - no matter how harmless it may seem.

Movie Review: Monsters vs. Aliens

“This place has been X-filed, wrapped in a cover up, and deep fried in a paranoid conspiracy.”

I laughed pretty hard when I saw the first trailer for Monsters vs. Aliens from Dreamworks so I was expecting an extremely funny movie. While there were quite a few laughs in it, I think that this movie has a lot more heart and story than I was expecting.

The movie begins on Susan Murphy’s (voiced by Reese Witherspoon) wedding day. As she prepares to tie the knot, we quickly see that the groom and his family are not going to be as appealing as she may have thought they would be. Still, she’s convinced that marrying her fiancé Derek Dietl (voiced by Paul Rudd) will make her happy, so she resolves to take the plunge.

Unfortunately, mere moments before her nuptials, she’s hit by a meteor. This puts a damper on her wedding as she begins to glow, and then grow into a 30-foot tall giant.

The military quickly shows up, takes her into custody and locks her away with 4 other monsters they’ve apprehended over the years. First there’s the hilariously brainless, gelatinous mass named B.O.B. (voiced by Seth Rogen), the brainy Dr. Cockroach Ph.D. (voiced by Hugh Laurie), the half-man/half-fish The Missing Link (voiced by Will Arnett), and the gigantic Insectosaurus (voiced by what sounds like Godzilla)


Just like most Dreamworks animated movies, there are plenty of pop-culture references in this flick, but I enjoyed all of them as they played homage to many of the B-movies from years back and often included references to Stephen Spielberg’s movies E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

My least favorite parts of this movie involved the military and government characters. It’s easy to see that the filmmakers don’t have a high opinion of the military and poke fun at them a lot. I especially groaned when they introduced the military leader, General W.R. Monger (voiced by Kiefer Sutherland). Giving a character the name “War Monger” immediately gave me the impression that he was going to be a bad guy, but the total opposite was true so I concluded that it was just bad writing that was just trying to put in digs at anything they didn’t like.


The only other aspect of this movie that I didn’t enjoy relates to the animation. With computer graphic technology improving so much over recent years they can make human characters so realistic with their skin and modeling that I thought the human characters in this movie verged on the creepy side.

Fortunately, the President (voiced by Stephen Colbert) and the other humans in the government don’t take up too much of the movie. Contrary to what the trailers show, the story revolves almost entirely around the character Susan Murphy, who is codenamed Ginormica, and her struggle to become a person who takes charge of her own life and destiny. All while battling an alien invasion led by the dastardly Gallaxhar (voiced by Rainn Wilson).


All in all, I really enjoyed this movie. I would recommend it to anyone who’s up for a fun time, although it wasn’t as full of laughs as I thought it would be, what it lacked in constant hilarity, it made up for with heart. Bear in mind, though, that there are parts that might be seen as inappropriate and even scary for little children—an unfortunately common staple for Dreamworks movies—but nothing was terribly over the top and should be enjoyed by most everyone.

Movie Review: Knowing

“What happens when the numbers run out?”

What do you do if you know that a devastating disaster is about to occur and where it will happen? Do you make sure that you are far away from the event so you can be kept safe? Or do you try to warn as many people as you can and even try to be on the scene to aid as many victims as possible? What if there is nothing you can do about it? Does knowing about it make it better because at least then you can prepare? Or would you want to be kept in the dark?

These and many other questions are raised in the latest film starring Nicolas Cage entitled, Knowing, which was made by Alex Proyas, who directed one of my favorite films, I, Robot.

Knowing begins 50 years ago, as a new elementary school is about to bury a time capsule. A classroom assignment has all of the children drawing pictures to put into it depicting what they think the future will look like. One oddity is a little girl, Lucinda Embry (Lara Robinson), who is inexplicably writing what appears to be random numbers on her paper, which also gets placed into the capsule.


Fast forward 50 years, we see the time capsule opened and Lucinda’s strange paper with the numbers on it finds it’s way into the hands of Caleb (Chandler Canterbury), the son of John Koestler (Nicolas Cage). John takes the paper, and in a surprisingly easy turn of events discovers that the numbers are the dates when a disaster occurred, how many people died and where they happened. What’s disturbing, though, is that the last three dates on the list are in the very near future.

Armed with this knowledge, John has the overwhelming dilemma of what to do with it. How hard should he try to convince people of its truth? Should he warn the people where the disasters are about to occur? Is there any way to stop them?

What follows is a movie filled with mystery and tense, edge of your seat suspense. I had my cell phone in my shirt pocked and jumped in my seat at one point when it vibrated with an email during a suspenseful scene. There were times when the feel of the movie goes from disaster film, to horror flick, but all of it is engaging and, for me, very satisfying.

Since the date of 9/11/01 is the catalyst for John’s deciphering of the numbers, I can’t help but think about the impact that tragic day has had on my ability to watch movies like this.

I remember sitting in the theater in 1996 watching the Will Smith blockbuster Independence Day and being in awe as the alien ships destroyed the cities and important landmarks. I remember being rather charged up by the intensity of it all and then the satisfaction of payback that the rest of the movie brought.

But now, I have a hard time watching that movie. Partly because there are many parts that I’ve come to regard as just plain goofy, but mostly because of the reality of what such destruction can bring which was tragically brought to light when terrorists brought down the twin towers in New York on September 11, 2001. I remember the devastation caused by such a sudden and real loss of life and I haven’t been able to watch so-called “disaster movies” with the same air of entertainment since. Before 9/11, occurrences like that were pure fantasy, but now we know that things like that can really happen, and we know the heavy cost that events like that have on our psyche and society.


With all of this in mind, let me say that this movie is not for the faint of heart. There are small, personal dangers that our characters have to deal with, but there are also global crises that loom ever more ominously as the last few dates on the list come and go. Much of what we see in the disaster scenes is very realistic and disturbing to see, but I never felt like it was gratuitous—often those events are also realistically accompanied by acts of heroism and selflessness.


Make no mistake, though, Knowing is definitely Science Fiction and is a metaphor that will be colored by your own religious or philosophical beliefs, but I would suggest that everyone see this movie if for no other reason than to start yourself considering some of these dilemmas for yourself. I will not provide any of my own interpretations in this review because I believe that would detract from your own experience with this movie. 

One message that I did get out of this movie that I will share, though, is that no matter how tragic the situation is that we find ourselves in, if we can somehow find hope, that will make the outcome so much easier to bear.

Movie Review: Race to Witch Mountain

Disney has a recent tradition of taking their older, more dated, properties and making newer versions with mixed results. For the most part they are commercial successes, but I can’t say that I’ve seen any of them that I prefer to the original. It’s probably because I grew up watching and enjoying the originals and I can’t help but compare them. Also it’s probably because most of them star Lindsay Lohan, and it didn’t take me long at all to get tired of seeing her everywhere. Fortunately, in addition to being completely Lohan-free, Disney’s new version of Escape to Witch Mountain, renamed Race to Witch Mountain, is an extremely entertaining and very fun ride!

As it began, Race to Witch Mountain first grabbed my attention by the intense opening credits, which featured a montage of fuzzy UFO sighting video edited together with audio clips of people describing their encounters. The pace of the credits got me interested in the film and hoping that the rest of the movie would be just as exciting.


The story begins as the U.S. Government tracks a UFO as it crash lands in the desert just outside of Las Vegas. Agents are quickly on the scene, led by Henry Burke (Ciarán Hinds), and they soon realize that there were two beings on the ship who most likely resemble human beings, and the agents begin tracking their movements into the city.

Meanwhile, Jack Bruno (Duane “The Rock” Johnson) is a man with a troubled past who is trying to make a clean living as a taxi driver who shuttles people to and from the airport in “Sin City.” After a few brief examples of what his life is like we swing right into some exciting chase scenes as Sara (AnnaSophia Robb) and Seth (Alexander Ludwig) appear in his taxi offering him $500,000 to take them into the middle of nowhere in the desert. From this moment on there were enough car chases, special effects and humor to keep me interested through to the very end.

Along the way they run into Dr. Alex Friedman (Carla Gugino) who is a scientist who has massacred her career by her persistent professing of her belief in extra-terrestrial life. I was entertained by the scenes that introduced her character as she tried to talk serious science to a group of costumed sci-fi fans that were attending the UFO convention where she was presenting. Her coming together with Jack, Sara and Seth at the convention and the antics that facilitated their escape from their pursuers were some of the best parts of the movie for me.


While I really liked this movie, there were a couple moments that struck me as weaknesses. The first was the introduction of the mafia-type thugs who show up and try to bring Jack to see the big boss-man. This is a story thread that I didn’t think went anywhere and only served as a device to make a couple of minor things happen. The whole sub-plot could have easily been jettisoned in my opinion.


Another thing that distracted me was that immediately after Jack and the kids get finished fighting an alien bounty hunter. called a Siphon, and then narrowly escape being pursued by the same bounty hunter who chases them in a space ship, Jack has an bafflingly hard time believing Sara when she tells him that they are from another planet! I thought that the point for him to abandon his disbelief was back when the seemingly indestructible Siphon first fired his Boba Fett-style wrist rockets.

There was another moment that I thought was going to disappoint me, but when it didn’t finish the way I was expecting it to, it only made me enjoy the movie even more. Like I wrote in an article about bad foreshadowing a few years back, whenever a trusted character in a movie tells the protagonists not to trust anyone, we usually see by the end of the movie, that the person they were weren’t supposed to trust is usually that same “trusted character” who says something like, “didn't I tell you not to trust anyone?” Two movies that do this are Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Minority Report (both Steven Spielberg movies, hmm). Well, all I can say is when a particular character in this movie said, “don’t trust anyone,” I actually groaned because I thought for sure this was setting him up to be a traitor in the end. To my surprise it didn’t turn out at all the way I was expecting it to, and I really enjoyed what they ended up doing with the character.

I was happy to see the two grown-up stars from the original Escape to Witch Mountain, Kim Richards and Ike Eisenmann, in small parts as people who lend them helping hands in a restaurant.

In many ways I don’t think that the marketing for this movie did it justice. I don’t know what I was expecting out of it, but I sure wasn’t expecting to enjoy it as much as I did. The nice thing about this movie is that I never felt like I was patiently sitting through a kids movie waiting for the credits, but I also never thought that I was watching a show that was too mature for my 9 and 11 year old daughters who were sitting with me. The director, Andy Fickman, did an excellent job of making a well-rounded piece of entertainment that all ages will enjoy. Definitely a movie I would recommend and very much worth watching in the theater.

Movie Trailers: Up and Land of the Lost

This might seem like a strange thing to create a new post about, but as I was in the theater getting ready to watch Disney's Race to Witch Mountain, I was thoroughly entertained by two movie trailers and I just had to tell you about them.

The first one for the upcoming Disney/Pixar animated adventure titled Up, which is about a crotchity old retired balloon salesman and an eager young scout as they set off on an adventure around the world. The first time I saw anything about Up, I had no idea what it was really going to be about. it almost seemed like some kind of artsy film of some kind, but every time they release a trailer that reveals more of the plot, I keep getting more and more excited to finally see it.


You can watch the same trailer that I saw tonight in the theater, here:

http://disney.go.com/disneypictures/up/

Up opens in theaters May 29th.

The second trailer was for the new Will Ferrell movie which is a very loose remake of the old TV series, Land of the Lost, from Universal Studios. I didn't remember hearing anything about this movie before seeing the trailer tonight, but now that I have seen it, it's one of the year's movies that I'm anticipating most!


You can see the trailer here:

http://www.landofthelost.net/

I was excited to see Anna Friel as one of the co-stars in Land of the Lost. She was a star of one of my favorite shows, ABC's Pushing Daisies, which has unfortunately been cancelled.

Land of the Lost is hitting theaters on June 5th.

It's starting to look like this is going to be a very good year at the cinemas!

Movie Review: Beverly Hills Chihuahua

When Disney's Beverly Hills Chihuahua came out in the theaters a few months ago I wasn’t very excited to see it, but my 10-year-old daughter loves dogs and nearly fainted with ecstasy when she saw the trailers—so off we went.

The movie was a bit different from what I was expecting from the trailers, which amused me with their “Dog Revolution” themes. Instead the story is about a pampered Beverly Hill’s Chihuahua, Chloe (voiced by Drew Barrymore) whose owner, Aunt Viv (Jamie Lee Curtis) has to go away on business and leaves her prized pet in the care of her irresponsible niece, Rachel (Piper Perabo). Rachel’s friends soon coerce her into a road trip down to Mexico and in the process of it all, Chloe ends up getting lost south of the border.

What follows is a frequently funny mismatched buddy movie as she teams up with the reluctant Delgado (voiced by Andy Garcia), who is a washed-up police dog without a home. Meanwhile, Papi (voiced by George Lopez), a hunky Chihuahua who belongs to Aunt Viv’s gardener and is madly in love with Chloe accompanies his owner to Mexico in an effort to rescue his love.

One technical issue that probably annoyed only me, is that I'm not a fan of the animation of animal mouths that started in the 1990s with the movie Babe. I was just as entertained by the dogs and cat in Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey even though we never saw their mouths move once. It was the writing and the editing that made that movie as touching as it was and it's also what makes Beverly Hills Chihuahua so endearing. It would be just as good without the animated speech of the animals.

With all of the unmanliness of watching a movie about tiny, fancy, talking dogs aside, I found this movie very entertaining. In many ways it reminded me of the wholesome movies that Disney made years back, like The Shaggy Dog, That Darn Cat!, or even The Apple Dumpling Gangor Pete's Dragon. There were, of course, all of the standard formulaic elements that get tiring in some movies, but I always feel I have to remind myself when watching movies like this that are made primarily for kids, that they are are playing to an audience that hasn't already been jaded by seeing the same formulas play out again and again.

I'd recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys comedies about animals. It's nowhere near as annoying as the movie from a few years ago, Cats & Dogs, but it actually has quite a lot of charm.

Beverly Hills Chihuahua is available today on DVD and Blu-ray and is also available for download on iTunes. Don't forget to download the catchy theme song, "Chihuahua," while you're at it.

Coming Soon: Star Wars - The Clone Wars

The latest installment in the Star Wars franchise, Star Wars: The Clone Wars, is scheduled to hit theaters August 15th. While there have been other animated adventures in the Star Wars universe n dating back to the Boba Fett debuting short that was part of the much maligned Star Wars Holiday Special in the late 70s, and even though some people could argue that all of the Star Wars prequels were mostly animated with the likes of Jar Jar, Watto and a bazillion clones, this is the first feature length film billed as a completely animated feature.

It's hard to tell exactly where this movie is supposed to fit in to the overall timeline of everything that's been produced—possibly somewhere between the first Cartoon Network animated Clone Wars series and the second one that lead up to the events directly before Episode III: Revenge of the Sith—but this storyline shows Anakin as a Jedi Master with a Padawan learner, Ahsoka Tano (the red-faced Jedi in the next two pictures shown below), as they depart on a mission involving crime boss, Jabba the Hutt.


Anyone who has read my reviews in the past would know that I've been a long time fan of the Star Wars universe, but like many people I have hang-ups about what has been done with the prequels. In large measure it seems to me that George Lucas is using the Star Wars galaxy as a portfolio piece for what his company, Lucasfilm, is capable of producing. In so doing, the story lines have tended to be a little shallow.


While the voice impersonations are impressive as can be heard in the trailer, Star Wars: The Clone Wars contains none of the actors who appeared in any of the Star Wars Prequels except for Anthony Daniels as C-3PO; Christopher Lee (impressive that he's in it) as Count Dooku; and Samuel L. Jackson (more impressive...) as Mace Windu.


From Warner Bros press materials, here is a synopsis of the story:

As the Clone Wars sweep through the galaxy, the heroic Jedi Knights struggle to maintain order and restore peace. More and more systems are falling prey to the forces of the dark side as the Galactic Republic slips further and further under the sway of the Separatists and their never-ending droid army.

Anakin Skywalker and his Padawan learner Ahsoka Tano find themselves on a mission with far-reaching consequences, one that brings them face-to-face with crime lord Jabba the Hutt. But Count Dooku and his sinister agents, including the nefarious Asajj Ventress, will stop at nothing to ensure that Anakin and Ahsoka fail at their quest.

Meanwhile, on the front lines of the Clone Wars, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Master Yoda lead the massive clone army in a valiant effort to resist the forces of the dark side...

Though it may not sound this way, I am optimistic that this will be an enjoyable movie. I'm excited to see what fresh writers and directors have done in this upcoming movie and I'll definitely check it out when it hits the theaters and will probably have my kids right there with me. I just wish it would have been set in an era with a bit more of a blank canvas, like after the fall of the Empire, post Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. If that were the case, we would be watching something where there would be real danger for the main characters, because we know that Anakin, Obi-Wan, and all of the others will make it through whatever dangers they find themselves in because we see them in the later episodes of Star Wars. I think it would be nice if Anakin's padawan, Ahsoka Tano becomes the central character in this movie so when the TV series begins, it's with a fresh group dealing with fresh issues other than Anakin's inevitable dark deeds.

I guess I just have to hope that if this movie and subsequent series are successful, then maybe someday in the future we'll get to see a Television series or movie about the rise of the New Jedi Order featuring an older Luke Skywalker—it's HIS story I'm most interested in hearing told.

Stay tuned to this site for a review once the movie hits the theaters.

Movie Review: Hancock

We’ve all experienced it before: trailers for movies that seem fill you in on the whole plot before you set foot into the theater. Sometimes they can make you wonder what the point is of going to see the movies if you already know what to expect. So as I was sitting in the theater waiting for Hancock to start, I began running through my mind what I already knew about this movie from all the commercials and publicity.

The first trailer shows him sacked-out on a bus stop bench like a wino. Soon, a boy wakes him up and tells him that there are some bad guys causing problems. Hancock then grudgingly takes off to the save the day. From the trailers that follow we learn that his carelessness causes more damage and problems than the crimes were creating in the first place. We also see Jason Bateman playing someone who is trying to help clean up his image, which he must do successfully because we later see Hancock in a tight leather crime-fighting suit attempting to save the day in a more civilized way.


Will all of this in mind I was worried that I was about to sit through an extended version of what I had already seen, but I was pleased when the movie started and within the first 15-20 minutes just about every scene that had shown up in the trailers and commercials had gone by and there was still plenty of screen time left. It was obvious that the moviemakers had a broad enough story to tell that would go far beyond Hancock’s wayward days.

And what they come up with is exciting! It’s a really fun ride, especially for anyone who enjoys superhero movies and is in the mood for something slightly different. In many ways, Hancock is parody of many of the hero movies out there—kind of an anti-hero or a hero dealing with real world problems. Will Smith does an excellent job conveying the bad attitude needed for us to understand why the good people of L.A. would feel like they’d be better off without him, but he also is wonderful when he needs to let us see the struggles Hancock goes through as he tries to figure out what kind of person he wants to be.


There was one point in the movie, though, once we had gotten beyond everything that was shown in the pre-release publicity, that I was I wasn’t liking the direction the movie was going in. There’s a twist in the story that I wasn’t feeling too crazy about. I won’t reveal what it is because it would spoil much of the movie, but I will say that it was a seemingly implausible coincidence that they ended up explaining in a way that ended up taking away all my apprehension and getting me back into really enjoying the show. By the time the movie was over, it had won me over and I was wishing I could seem more. (By the way, don’t be so quick to get up and leave the theater once the credits start running.)


There may be some people who don’t like the direction that it goes in the post trailer movie, but just keep in mind that it is a super-hero movie and in the end it fulfills that role perfectly. Will Smith once again proves that he is an A-list movie star for a good reason. Jason Bateman is endearing and fun as the struggling PR guy, Ray, who decides to try to change Hancock’s image. Charlize Theron is perfect as Mary, Ray’s wife, who is very cautious about bringing Hancock into their lives. Together they are a great group of actors that I look forward to seeing in many things to come.


Hancock is rated PG-13 for super-hero violence and action, but what makes it inappropriate for youngsters is a large dose of foul language. Recommended for older kids and adults.

Movie Review: Wall-E

Wow, what can I say? I've been anticipating every new Disney/Pixar release since they wowed me with their first theatrical release, Toy Story. Now Wall•E is out and I'm as impressed as ever!

Set far into the future we encounter Wall-E as he happily labors away at a job he's been doing for the last 700 years, which is cleaning up the Earth.  As he's worked through the centuries, he's developed a few quirks: He's befriended the last living inhabitant of the Earth (that we know of), a cockroach. He watches the songs and dances from Hello Dolly over and over and fantasizes being able to have someone to love and sing to of his own. And he collects things that he finds interesting. Everything from rubber duckies, to lighters. As far as Wall-E is concerned, he's a robot who has it all.

Soon a probe ship arrives at Earth and launches EVE whose mission it is to seek out signs that the planet is once again able to sustain life. Of course, as far as Wall-E is concerned, when he sees EVE it's love at first sight.

From here we embark on a wonderful adventure of Wall-E discovering what has become of the former inhabitants of the Earth as he attempts to stay close to EVE. The wonderful part of this movie is how the simple fact of Wall-E's presence impacts every person he comes in contact with, and changes them all in very positive ways.

Wall•E not only displays Pixar's state-of-the-art expertise in computer animation, but it's also a showcase for the skill level of their animators. There is very little dialogue in this movie at all. Most of everything we learn about Wall-E and the other robots who inhabit most of this film is done through synthesized voices and pantomime. It's quite a joy to watch these seemingly inanimate objects display a wide range of emotions that allow us to empathize with them.

For the first time in a Disney/Pixar film, the future looks bleak. With our planet so polluted that we're forced to evacuate to space and humanity evolving into helpless blobs because the technology they've developed spoon feeds them everything they need, it's really the boldest statement about world issues that Pixar has ever made. I'm sure that many people will take environmental messages from this film, and maybe appropriately so, but the strongest message that I got out of it stems from some of my personal relationships with people who have let their health go so far south that they need full-time caregivers to help them accomplish simple tasks in their daily lives. The message I got from this movie is to never give up your ability to control your own life, whether it's your personal abilities or social freedoms, because if you ever do, it'll take nothing short of a revolutionary effort to gain it back.

Watching this movie, I fell in love with Wall-E in much the same way I fell in love with E.T. when I was a child. My favorite part was in the beginning when we got to see him doing his daily work, and then watch him stop to take in the wonder of the simplest of things. That child-like curiosity is something that I could have watched for hours.

Whether or not you have children, you owe it to yourself to see Wall•E. It's a visual delight and a heartwarming treat that's bound to inspire and touch audiences for years to come!

Movie Review: Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium

“Your life is an occasion, rise to it.”

One of my favorite movies as a child was Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory starring Gene Wilder.  I was fascinated by the colorful factory and by the thought of being Charlie and being able to inherit the factory. As I’ve grown older my love for this movie has stayed with me and I now love it for the heart shown in the ending and also for the quick-fire, witty dialogue delivered by Gene Wilder and all of his subtle humor. To me, this movie has all of the ingredients of a film that should be loved by children and adults for years and years to come.

I couldn’t help thinking about Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory as I sat in the theater watching Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium. Initially, I wasn’t very interested in seeing this movie. The thought of Dustin Hoffman trying to be a light and bubbly toymaker didn’t do a whole lot for me. But as soon as he appeared on the screen I realized that he wasn’t playing Dustin Hoffman as a light and bubbly toymaker, he was playing Ed Wynn as a light and bubbly toymaker—and that made all the difference. Most people will probably remember Ed Wynn as the eccentric Uncle Albert in Disney's Mary Poppins, or as the voice of the Mad Hatter in Disney’s Alice in Wonderland.

Mr. Magorium’s Wonder Emporium is about Molly Mahoney, Played by Natalie Portman, who is at a crossroads of her life because after years of working as the manager of a magical toy store, she’s feeling at a loss for finding the magic inside herself. As a child prodigy pianist, she’s frustrated that she can’t find the inspiration to create her own musical masterpieces. So she decides to leave the toys store to pursue her music just as Mr. Magorium announces that after over 200 years of life, he’s ready to depart and will be leaving the Wonder Emporium to Molly.

What follows is a wonderful story about finding wonder inside yourself, living life with no regrets, and finding fun in everything you do. Of course, that’s what I got out of the movie, I’m sure there may be different lessons for you.

When I first saw this movie advertised, I assumed it was based on a classic children’s book that I had only vaguely heard of like so many family movies are these days. I was very surprised when I saw that this movie was written and directed by Zach Helm only, and wasn’t based on anything. Helm has a modest list of credits on IMDB.com which include writing Stranger Than Fiction, starring Will Ferrell—a rather unusual movie that I really enjoyed. It's nice to see such a creative and imaginative writer and director and I’ll be sure to watch for anything else with Zach Helm in the credits.

Whether it’s because I was thoroughly enjoying the movie or if it was actually flawed I’m not sure, but when it came time for Mr. Magorium and the Wonder Emporium to end, I wasn’t ready. Sometimes movies end too quickly after the climax and I regret that more time wasn’t taking to wrap things up. That’s really the only complaint I have with this film. There were many things that I was hoping to see wrapped up that weren’t. All I can hope is that this is a story that will have a next chapter.

Movie Review: Spider-man 3

"This suit, where'd this come from? The power, feels good... But you lose yourself to it... "

When I was in high school, Spider-man was the comic series that I read the most. I loved how Peter Parker was just this awkward young guy who just happened to have this super secret identity—in a sense it gave me hope to face my own awkwardness. When the movie franchise started a few years ago I was thrilled with the result. The director of all of the Spider-man films, Sam Raimi, has been able to give the movies the right balance of humor and stylized film making that has made it possible for a guy clad in blue and red tights not to look ridiculous.


Now that we're on the third installment, the series is becoming quite comfortable with it's characters and storytelling. As I was watching, it struck me how much like a continuing series on television this franchise was becoming, and in light of shows like Lost and Heroes, I think a TV show about an established super hero would do very well. So it was with that thought it mind that I started evaluating Spider-man 3.

As part of a continuing series, I thought this "episode" fit in very well. We're continuing the personal relation ship drama that Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is having with Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst) and Harry Osborn (James Franco). We're seeing characters show up that are important in the comic books like Dr. Curt Connors (Dylan Baker) who eventually becomes The Lizard and Gwen Stacy (Bryce Dallas Howard) who fills her comic book role of being a love interest in a romantic triangle with Peter and Mary Jane.


There were problems, however, when I began thinking of this movie as a stand-alone story. My biggest problem with it was a storyline involving Harry Osborn following in his dad's footsteps as The New Goblin. I'll try not to give away too much, but let me just say there's a short-lived change of heart that does nothing more than take up time in the story because by the time the climax to the movie happens, they had ended up at the same stage the began at.


The other problem that I had with this installment is the fact that there were 3 villains in this movie. I thought we'd learned years ago in Batman Returns that when you try to cram too many villains into a 2 hour movie, someone besides the hero gets the shaft—the audience. As a childhood fan of the Spider-man series, I was really excited to see the Venom villain realized on film and I felt a bit disappointed at how lightly that character was handled.

Will all of this being said, I don't want anyone to think that I didn't like this movie—there are many things to love about this film! It has a great message. In addition to the standard themes of "with great power comes great responsibility" and putting the needs and safety of others above your own personal satisfaction, there's an additional message to this movie that we all of the potential for good or evil in our lives, and it's up to us to choose.

All in all, I would recommend this movie. It might not be the best of the series, but it definitely fits in well will the overall story of the trilogy and I for one hope that this is a series that's nowhere near finished running its course.

Movie Review: Children of Men

The year is 2027, and the world has gone to dystopian heck.

Eastern Europe, North American and African societies have collapsed, with the refugees pouring into England. Humankind is on the brink of extinction, as no child has been born for the last 18 years.

This is the setting for Alfonso Cuarón's Children of Men. While it may not sound like a good time at the cinema, it is one of the most startling and interesting movies I've seen all year.

Like his previous films such as A Little Princess and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Cuarón is a director with a distinct and imaginative vision. He's certainly one of my favorite directors, and I'd encourage you to watch all of his films.

In Children, he throws aside his playful sense of fantasy and replaces it with grim, gritty reality. It's a bit like George Orwel's 1984 meets Blade Runner with a helping of Shindler's List. Humanity is (sadly) cheap in 2027.

Clive Owen stars as Theo Faron, an ex-political activist turned bureaucrat who seems to be swimming through the cluttered wasteland of London with little to live for. He joins up with his still activist ex-wife, played by Julienne Moore, in an attempt to help save the world's last hope: a baby.



Owen is an unlikely hero, more flawed and human than any big-name action star. Here Owen stumbles through rubble, swigs alcohol, ducks stray bullets, and eventually finds some hope in life from helping someone else. He's filthy, unshaven, and a bit worn out... and yet he's also noble.

What I liked most about the film is that though it is very dark, you find yourself rooting for Theo to not only survive the journey, but also find some reason to live. He's a realistic and believable protagonist, one whom you wish you could hand a cup of hot coffee or some dry shoes.


The story moves about deftly, with hand-held cameras and some very long, natural shots. Cuarón does an amazing job with making the film feel natural, as if you're truly there. I often found myself cringing, ducking bullets, and really worrying about the characters on screen. I was on the edge of my seat for the entire span of the dvd.


The troubling thing about Children of Men is that this bleak future seems all too possible. It was almost like watching a real-world documentary from 2027. The loss of some personal liberties and security we've seen recently in America is echoed in Children... and it makes one wonder how far they might go.

I'd recommend for people not afraid of a hopeful story set in a very believable dark future.

Rated R

Daniel m. Davis
www.steamcrow.com

Movie Review: Surf's Up

They do it for the joy and the rapture and the slow-motion instant replay...

I remember 12 years ago when I was sitting in the theater watching Disney/Pixar’s Toy Story for the first time. The big selling point of the film was that it was the first all-CGI animated feature. Fortunately it also ushered in the fantastic era of Pixar story telling that always exceeded their technological feats.

So now fast forward to 2007 where hand drawn animation has been relegated to daytime animated cartoons and direct to DVD releases and CGI animation has become so commonplace that the story has to be interesting or entertaining enough to draw in audiences, and not just the fact that the images we’re seeing were completely hatched in a computer.

With all of this in mind, it’s so nice to see that a movie like Surf’s Up can provide computer generated visuals that instill a sense of awe, while telling a story that’s unique, touching and entertaining.

Surf’s Up is about a penguin named Cody Maverick, voiced by Shia LaBeouf (Transformers, Disturbia) who doesn’t fit in with his family in Antarctica because of his love of surfing. He soon gets his big break as a sports recruiter comes and signs him up to compete in the Penguin World Surfing Championship.

Story-wise, this film has a lot in common with the beach movies of the 1960s. There’s the mysterious surf hero named Big Z, voiced by Jeff Bridges (Tron, Seabiscuit); the goofy side-kick dude, voiced by the stereotyped Jon Heder (Napoleon Dynamite, Just Like Heaven); and the beach girl love interest, voiced by Zooey Deschanel (Elf, Bridge to Terabithia)—all of which kept reminding me of the Gidget movies, where the wise and seasoned surfer had to straighten out the naive newcomer.

What makes Surf’s Up so unique is that it’s filmed in a documentary style that mimics many of the reality TV shows that are on the air right now.  This is quite a daring thing to do because of how popular reality TV is—it would be easy in an animated feature to make it look too planned out to work in that format. Fortunately, the animators do an excellent job and combined with the natural voice acting, make you feel like you’re watching something that was captured live on camera instead of being painstakingly posed frame-by-frame.

So, how did this movie affect me? Well, let's just say that when I watched Cars, it didn’t make me want to drive race cars; when I watched The Incredibles, I didn’t want to go out and become a superhero (well, at least no more than usual); but by the time Surf’s Up was over, I was actually getting excited about the prospect of going out and learning how to surf! The CGI animation was so expertly done that I was actually feeling like I was getting a taste of what the sport is actually like. Over the last few years I’ve been lamenting the fact that the movie industry has all but abandoned traditional, hand-drawn animation, but here is a movie that would definitely not have been as effective if it was done any other way.

I think that Surf’s Up was hurt by all of the recent penguin movies. I for one sighed a bit when I saw the first advertisement for it, but take my advice—forget all you know about March of the Penguins or Happy Feet, put on Surf’s Up and get ready for a fun ride!

Movie Review: Elizabeth: The Golden Age

I, too, can command the wind, sir! I have a hurricane in me that will strip Spain bare if you dare to try me!

I went into watching Elizabeth: The Golden Age without having seen the first Elizabeth movie from 1998, so I was a little concerned about how lost I could be if this movie was a strict continuation of the first. If anyone else shares my concern, let me reassure you that not only is this a chapter out of the life of Queen Elizabeth I that stands on it’s own very well, but it’s also very accessible to those who aren’t into Old English history.


This chapter out of the life of “The Virgin Queen” portrays Queen Elizabeth I, played once again by Cate Blanchett (The Lord of the Rings, The Good German), as she is in jeopardy of having her kingdom overthrown by a crazed king of Spain who believes that this Protestant Queen is corrupting her people by straying from the Catholic faith. He employs spies and traitors to put into place a plan aimed at dethroning Elizabeth and placing England under Spanish rule.

I have to admit that this movie started at a pace that made me feel like it was building to something big. Everything that was said and done came across with an air of importance. And while the actual battle for England didn’t occur until the very end, there was plenty of treachery, intrigue and genuine surprises to keep me interested.


Just a word to all of the “chick-flick” haters out there: Yes, this is a costume drama and yes people do speak with accents and different languages (with subtitles), and yes there is romance in this movie with a love triangle between Elizabeth, one of her ladies in waiting and Sir Walter Raleigh, played by Clive Owen (King Arthur, Children of Men), but these aspects never detract from the fact that the themes, mysteries and reversals portrayed here are just as interesting and poignant as when told in a modern setting.


Since I did notice as the movie was starting that there were about 20 women in the theater and only 3 men, including me, I feel that I need to emphasize a recommendation for this movie. Since I haven’t seen the first I can’t say whether or not it’s more or less of a “girly” film than the first, but it was definitely an entertaining film for me, a guy, that was well worth the price of admission.

Movie Review: Night at the Museum

Our Night at the Museum

I must admit that after seeing the previews for Night at the Museum, I was genuinely worried that this would be another one of those weak movies with a weak plot that ruins the movie by packing all of the funny parts into the preview. I am pleased to say that I was very pleasantly surprised.

This is one of those movies that takes into account that adults will be seeing the movie alongside their children. When I saw it in the theater, there were several places where you could hear adults laughing out loud. Ok, I admit it. I was one of them. But when I heard an 81-year-old Dick Van Dyke deliver the line, “No, Mr. Fredricks was my father,” I couldn’t help myself.

The premise behind the script is that because of an Egyptian curse, everything in the museum comes to life each night with the setting of the sun. When the rays of the sun once again peek over the horizon, all of the museum pieces return to their inanimate state. Now, this does present some inconsistencies at times. For example, at one point, the information desk is completely destroyed by a tyrannosaurus skeleton on a rampage, but then the desk is magically restored when the sun comes up. However, in another case, our hero Larry Daley (Ben Stiller) gets in trouble when the museum director spots fire extinguisher foam on a caveman display. However, the writing is so clever and entertaining, that you are willing to overlook these “reality” breaks.


Another thing that makes this movie work is the actors. Ben Stiller is able to keep the movie grounded while everything around him is in utter chaos. Stiller is always good at playing the straight man in the midst of ridiculous situations. If you liked him in Meet the Parents, you will like his performance in Museum. Another refreshing surprise was to see Dick Van Dyke, Mickey Rooney, and Bill Cobbs as the retiring night watchmen. These gentlemen still have their comedic gifts even in their twilight years. Owen Wilson and Robin Williams also play their parts perfectly, and if you can believe it, Robin’s character is actually quite subdued, playing the part of the wise sage, Teddy Roosevelt. If there was one performance I did not enjoy, it was Ricky Gervais (The Office, UK version) as the museum director. His performance was just too overacted to be believable.


So overall, this movie does not have a life-altering message, except perhaps to never quit and always do your best, but I must say that we were definitely entertained. From the moment my 6-year-old daughter grabbed my arm when the T-Rex came after Ben Stiller, to the car ride home where all my kids kept repeating the lines delivered by a giant Easter Island head, (“Hey dumb-dumb, give me gum-gum.”) We had fun. Kids and adults alike will enjoy this movie. That is, unless you happen to spend your free time sitting on your porch in a creaky rocking chair yelling at kids to “Get off the lawn!” By the way, the scenes with the monkey were still funny even though I had seen them hundreds of times in the previews.

Movie Review: Flyboys

What is it, exactly, that makes a movie into a blockbuster? Is it the name-brand actors that populate the cast, Like Oceans 11 and 12? Is it an engaging story that captivates the audience long before the movie is made, like Titanic? Is it the millions of dollars the studio pours into pre-release marketing in hopes of a record-breaking opening, like Happy Feet? Well, it’s a shame, but for some reason Flyboys seems to have missed most, if not all of these opportunities.

Flyboys is a World War I era film centered around Blaine Rawlings, played by James Franco (Spider-Man, Tristan and Isolde), who looses his ranch in Texas to creditors and is left with nobody and nowhere to go, so he decides to go to France to become a biplane pilot before the United States had officially entered the war.

When Blaine arrives, he quickly bonds with fellow Americans who have joined up with France’s Air Force for various reasons but who all must quickly learn how to trust each other as they learn how to use the new invention called an “airplane” in a wartime setting.

Quite a few things impressed me about this movie, primarily how well it was served by the modern special effects technology of our time. The portrayal of the dogfights conveyed well how naked these pilots were up in the sky with no canopy over their head, nothing much thicker than paper around them, and no parachutes to escape with if they should go down. All of this reinforced to me how dangerous these aerial dogfights actually were.


Another great thing about this movie was how true to the period the relationships seemed. In the last few years, Hollywood has seen fit to take historical events and put fictional characters in them to tell the story, such as Titanic, U-571, and Pearl Harbor. The problem with this is that in the process they usually introduce modern sensibilities into these storylines that don’t always mesh with the historical setting. I was refreshed that the romantic plot in Flyboys was every bit as innocent and noble as I would have expected people to act in 1910.


What made this movie even more meaningful to me was that, at the end, they updated us on what happened to the characters after the story portrayed in the movie was over—even showing a picture of the actual people portrayed! I had no idea that this movie was based on a true story and people and was left scratching my head as to why a bigger deal of that wasn’t made when the movie was promoted.

Ultimately, I’m sorry that Flyboys didn’t do better at the box office, because I think everyone really missed out on, not only a great ride, but a great story about a world that was waking up to a new century with new technologies and ideas. I would definitely recommend this film.

The Prestige and The Illusionist

Why can’t Hollywood studios hide the fact that they copy each other a little better? Quite often, it seems that an executive from studio Y gets wind of what studio X is doing and demands that his studio come up with something bigger and better.

There are many examples of movie studios copying each other over the last decade: Armageddon and Deep Impact, Madagascar and The Wild, Mission to Mars and Red Planet, A Bug's Life and Antz. The list could go on and on. Usually these movies are released within a month or two of each other, making it even harder not to suspect copying, which usually leaves me to try to figure out which of the two concepts came first.

So, what’s bringing on this particular rant? The Prestige and The Illusionist. Both are period movies about magicians, both came out within 2 months of each other, and both have twisting plots told in the forms of flashbacks. I can’t help but compare them.

I saw The Illusionist when it was released in the theater. When the titles first appeared on the screen, I noticed how they looked a little shaky and thought it seemed strange. I quickly realized that it was all part of the overall style of the movie that I soon grew to love. The movie was made to appear like a silent movie, with washed-out, almost sepia toned color and subtle shutter flickers and iris wipes that hearken back to the primitive technology of movie making in the early 20th century silent movie era.

This old-fashioned style was also reflected in the designs of the costumes, sets, hair and make-up. Even the dialogue seemed to be stylized to fit more into the time, but never in an over-the-top, melodramatic way.


The story is essentially a love triangle between Eisenheim the Illusionist, played by Edward Norton (Fight Club), Sophie, Played by Jessica Biel (Stealth), and Crown Prince Leopold, Played by Rufus Sewel (Tristan and Isolde). The flashbacks are framed by the recollection of Inspector Uhl, played by Paul Giamatti (Sideways), who is enlisted to investigate Eisenheim once the Crown Prince develops suspicions of him at a performance.

There are plot twists in this movie that center around one question: does Eisenheim have supernatural powers or not? Once we learn the truth of this, all of the film’s other questions are also answered. So while there are no earth-shattering surprises, it’s still an intriguing mystery that you don’t truly know the answer of until the very end.

I saw the next film, The Prestige, on DVD recently. Written and directed by Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins), this movie appears to take place in the same period of time, but unlike The Illusionist, the filmmaking is rather straightforward. It is about two magicians played by Christian Bale (Batman Begins) and Hugh Jackman (X-Men) who at one time were friends, but through an accident have become bitter rivals, each trying to outdo the other.

The Prestige also stars the ubiquitous Scarlet Johansson (The Island, In Good Company, Match Point, The Black Dahlia, Lost in Translation, etc, etc, etc…) in a role that introduces a possible love triangle that turns out to be nothing more than a mildly effective plot device.


While The Prestige was an entertaining movie, I was disappointed that I was able to guess the two big secrets long before they were officially revealed in the movie. In fact, the very last shot of the film was undoubtedly supposed to be a shocking surprise, but it was exactly what I was expecting to see.

Between these two movies, I’d have to say that the best one was The Illusionist. The Prestige really let me down by destroying the illusion of the final trick by introducing technology more akin to Star Trek than performance magic. In watching a movie about magicians, or in watching a real magician like David Copperfield, part of the thrill is seeing something that seems impossible, but knowing it’s ultimately an illusion that leaves you wondering how in the world it was done—which is ultimately what we go see movies for, isn’t it?

Now if the movie studios could only do a better job at creating an illusion that they’re not copying each other, then we might be getting somewhere.

Movie Review: Casino Royale

Vesper Lynd: It doesn't bother you; killing all those people?

James Bond: Well I wouldn't be very good at my job if it did.

When a friend suggested going to see the new James Bond film, Casino Royale, I was more interested in a night at the movies than the movie itself. Not being much of a James Bond fan, if I was ever inclined to watch one of the previous movies, I was content to do it on the small screen in the comfort of my living room.

I’m sure that most of my reasons for not being crazy about previous Bond movies are the same things that would make people love them—the miraculous coincidences of his gadgets, the sexual puns and innuendo, his almost super-human ability to remain cool-headed amidst impending doom—instead, these gave me the attitude that if I’d seen one, I’ve seen them all.

But much to my surprise, once the opening credits began I knew that there was something different about Casino Royale. Instead of the artful silhouettes of nudes jumping around the screen, it was a brilliantly animated sequence that set me up for the action and themes of the movie. Plus, being a graphic designer myself, the artistry behind the credits was well worth the price of admission.


Daniel Craig (Munich, The Road To Perdition) was a brilliant choice as the new Bond. Though he’s handsome, he’s not the smooth, suave and debonair Bond that Pierce Brosnan was. Instead he’s rugged and visceral, like a cross between Steve McQueen and Mel Gibson.

Casino Royale is based on the first book in Ian Fleming’s James Bond series and shows us how he became a “Double-O” agent and how he handles his first “mission.” It’s great to see the studio restart the James Bond franchise like this. The changes aren’t as drastic as the way the Batman franchise was restarted with the movie Batman Begins, but I really liked how much more realistic everything seemed to me. Bond makes mistakes. He trusts too much. He’s reckless. He also gets hurt and has to convalesce for a while. It’s also nice to be shown by the events in this movie why he is emotionally detached and distrustful in future stories.

The action in Casino Royale was top notch. There wasn’t any fancy camera work to disguise poor stunt work or fight choreography but just straight-forward shots to let us be amazed by what they were doing and to enjoy the ride.


The filmmakers also do a great job at making a movie that’s essentially about a high-stakes card game, exciting. For a poker-ignoramus like myself, they're also able to explain the game enough for me to be interested in what happens next. I suppose that you could say that this movie was made to capitalize on all of the popularity poker is having right now, and I’m sure that’s true, but the card games were intermingled with enough intrigue and action that it never became dull or boring.

If you are concerned about the effects of gambling on teenagers, you might want to have them avoid this movie, otherwise I’d recommend it for anyone teen to adult who’s up for a good ride and a refreshing start to what was becoming a tired franchise.

NEWS: Spider-man 3 Final Trailer Now Online!

Comcast now has an exclusive site featuring the final Spider-man 3 trailer. In this trailer we see a quick glimpse of super-villain, Venom, who sprange from the comic book series about the time when I was in high school and still buying the series regularly.

I have to say, that of all the super-hero movies that have been made lately, the Spider-man series has been the most satisfying. Maybe it’s because they could stay very faithful to the look and feel of the series without having it become too campy. Maybe it’s because Peter Parker, played by Tobey Maquire (Seabiscuit, Pleasantville), is such an “everyman” that there’s a little bit of something that everyone can relate to. In either case, I’m really looking forward to seeing it and excited for the great start to the summer blockbusters.

Movie Review: Lady in the Water

When I saw the early trailer for M. Night Shyamalan’s movie, Lady in the Water, it appeared to be about a lonely superintendent who finds a mysterious woman-like creature in the pool, like a mermaid or something. As the release of the movie approached, it turned out that she was from a strange place far away and was being chased by these wolf-like creatures and for some reason, she needed the superintendent’s help. It turns out, the actual movie is much less interesting than either of these ideas.

Lady in the Water is about an apartment’s superintendent named Cleveland Heep, played by Paul Giamatti (Tim Burton’s Planet of the Apes, Sideways), who discovers a lady in the swimming pool named Story, played by Bryce Dallas Howard (How the Grinch Stole Christmas, The Village, Ron Howard’s daughter). She turns out to be a creature from the ocean that has come to find her human connection and then to return home. It becomes Cleveland’s task to figure out whom she needs to connect with and how to help her return home.

M. Night Shyamalan has built himself a name as a storyteller who weaves an intricate web of story elements that ultimately come together to provide his audience with a surprising and satisfying conclusion. Unfortunately, he apparently knows this, and is inclined to not only repeat the pattern in this movie, but also to talk to the audience about it as events unfold. In fact there’s so much talking in this movie that it totally saps away any mystery or suspense.

Usually I go to a movie hoping to be immersed in the imaginary world being portrayed on the big screen. I’ve never seen a movie that removed me from that experience more than this one did. From the opening prologue which totally took away any mystery about who she was, and on throughout the rest of the film, words like “contrived” and “convoluted” kept coming to my mind. The story seemed to meander along hoping to be linked together by the reciting of a bedtime story that was, coincidentally, exactly what was occurring. Instead of finding an interesting way of showing us what was going on, M. Night resorted to telling us. That might have worked in a book, but not in a movie.

Another thing that brought me out of this movie-watching experience was the fact that M. Night himself, who has usually played very small cameos in his movies, took on the role of a character who is a writer. This was such a significant part that I couldn’t help but be reminded that he is a writer also, and so he must be making statements about his own importance to the world through this part he was playing in his movie. This wouldn’t have bothered me nearly as much were another actor playing the part, but for some reason he felt he needed to do it and I couldn’t help questioning his motives.

I’m afraid I can’t recommend this movie. I was hoping for something that might be a departure from his usual formula, not a dissertation on what makes his movies what they are. Instead I would recommend watching 1948’s Mr Peabody and the Mermaid, a comedy about a man who actually finds a mermaid in his swimming pool; or 1994’s The Secret of Roan Inish, a drama about a young girl who discovers an ancestor of hers married a selkie—a seal who can turn into a human. I think a cross between these two films is what I was hoping for, anyway.

Movie Review: Cars

Knowing that I’m a big Pixar fan, I decided that I would try to be as impartial as possible in watching the new movie, Cars. I did a good job too—I thought. At first I was jaded as I heard Randy Newman’s Disney/Pixar logo fanfare at the beginning and I thought, “Oh yes, this is a John Lasseter film and he ALWAYS uses Randy Newman.” Then I was cynical as the movie started and I thought, “Is this going to be an hour and a half long Chevron talking car commercial?” And then the race began… I was hooked.

The story is about Lightning McQueen, voiced by Owen Wilson (Wedding Crashers, Shanghai Noon), a rookie on the racing circuit with a huge fan base and even larger ego. When his arrogance leads to botching his easy victory which ends up being a three-way tie, a showdown race is scheduled between the three winners in California for the following week.


On the way to California, his impatience causes him to be stranded in Radiator Springs, an old forgotten Route 66 desert town with an unusual automobile population. It’s here that he learns that his one-man-team/win-at-all-costs mentality is not the way to find true happiness and make real friends.


Pixar definitely is the top CGI animation studio for technological innovation and it showed in the smoke left by the squealing tires and the visual depth of the crowds in the opening racing scenes. The reflections on the cars actually made me think that they must have used real cars in places. The realism was amazing!


As with all Pixar films, their technological prowess never upstages the depth and charm of their characters. Owen Wilson is perfectly cast as the self absorbed speedster, and the Radiator Springs gallery of misfits all have their special charm and appeal. Tony Shalhoub (Monk, Galaxy Quest) does a perfectly unrecognizable accent as the obsessive Luigi, the European auto mechanic; Paul Newman (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, The Sting) has a powerful presence as the road weary Doc Hudson; but perhaps the most memorable of the bunch will be Larry the Cable Guy (Larry the Cable Guy), who voices the innocent and brash Mater, the tow truck.

I have to say that Pixar has done it right again. While I wouldn’t classify this as my most favorite of their movies, it in no way tarnishes their reputation for putting out the finest in CGI Animation, if not the finest in family entertainment.

I dare you not to enjoy this movie.

Movie Review: Firewall

The kinds of things I look for in a suspense thriller are a dangerous adversary, a likable protagonist, an overwhelming crisis, and a sense of real danger. Firewall has all of these qualities and more as it ups the ante by having the crisis set around the main character’s family who are taken hostage. The interesting twist is that his family is being held as hostages in his home with him. This creates the ever-present danger that if he fails to comply with the kidnapper's demands, he runs the risk of having his family killed right in front of him.

In the movie, Harrison Ford (Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark—do you really need me to tell you who he is?) plays Jack Stanfield, the director of network security at a bank in Seattle, Washington. The crisis begins as Bill Cox, played by Paul Bettany (A Beautiful Mind, Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World), uses his thugs to take Jack’s family hostage.


The ultimate goal of the hostage takers is to rob the bank. They place such complete surveillance on Jack that it seems virtually impossible for him not to comply with their demands in order to save his family. This is exactly what I liked about it. There were times when I thought there was no way he’d get out of it, and sometimes when it appears that he is going to get them out, it backfires and makes the situation worse.

To avoid spoiling any of it, I won’t say anything more about the plot. I will just say, that Harrison Ford is getting old. That’s not such a bad thing, though, but it was strange for me to watch this movie after finding out that he’s about 2 years older than my parents, who are now 62. The filmmakers actually used this to their advantage a few moments when he actually gets hurt! At one point, he had to climb around the side of a building and I started to think that they were stretching the believability a bit, but then he drops down on the ground and hurts himself and struggles to get up again. He’s also almost 20 years older than Virginia Madsen (Electric Dreams, Sideways), who plays his wife, but she did a very good job playing the mother of 2 children and I didn’t think about the age difference after a while.


My only complaint about this and other movies in this genre is that, while there were no questions left unanswered, the end of the movie came too soon after the climax. I like to have a little time to see that the characters are all really OK and that they are getting their lives back. At the beginning of this movie, his daughter calls him “Jack”, instead of “Dad” indicating that there must be some kind of rift between the two of them. I would have liked to see more of an emotional connection between them by the end.

Another thing that stuck out to me, though it didn’t bother me as much as other movies have, is that there was no foreshadowing left unexplored. Comments like, “Hey, his Radio Controlled car is messing up the TV!” or “Don’t forget the dog’s new special collar” or “Don’t feed him peanuts because they’ll kill him” all come back to pay off eventually, though not always as effectively as you might expect. Just once I’d like to see someone look longingly at a tube of toothpaste, or something, and never see it again—just to play with our heads.

Overall, Firewall effectively lives up to the suspense thriller genre. Although it didn’t get my adrenaline pumping as much as some other movies I’ve seen, it’s still a fun ride with strong actors and an engaging plot.

Movie Review: Mission Impossible 3

Mission: Impossible 3
Rated: PG-13
Starring: Tom Cruise, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Ving Rhames, Billy Crudup, Michelle Monaghan, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Keri Russell, Maggie Q, Laurence Fishburne.


Tom is back here as Ethan Hunt. This time he has left the field and is training agents. He's also engaged to be married (Monaghan), but of course he hasn't told his bride-to-be what he really does. His cover is that he works for the Department of Transportation and studies traffic patterns. Exciting stuff. Well guess what - he accepts a new assignment to rescue an agent he trained named Lindsey (Russell) who has been captured by the evil, sadistsic, and elusive black marketeer named Owen Davian (Hoffman). The rescue doesn't quite go as planned as Davian remotely kills Lindsey with a remotely detonated charge implanted in her head. Hunt and his IMF team go to Rome to capture Davian and figure out what he's really up to. They do capture him and find that he's after something called the Rabbit's foot (a McGuffin) although Davian is rescued in a bold and audacious rescue attempt. Next Hunt's new bride is captured, and it's a trade for him to get the Rabbits foot for her life - oh and he has 48 hours, oh and he's been declared a rogue agent and is on the run from his own department. Oh what will happen.

So first let's stop and ask, what do you really expect going into a Mission Impossible movie? Great stunts, non-stop action, great villain, solid ensemble acting, and a story that holds together. Well 4 out of 5 isn't too bad for this. The stunts and action are generally very well done, although there were definitely a few places that really exceeded the bounds of plausibility, and I mean really stretched the bounds of plausbility. I thought the Owen Davian character was good and Hoffman executed it well. The ensemble acting was solid although the IMF team mainly consists of Cruise with a bit of Rhames and Meyers and Maggie Q are needed to get the number of team members up to 4. They didn't have much to do, but did their bits very well. The story actually worked for me at the beginning until a scene near that end where a number of twists are revealed and things aren't what they appeared. The explanation didn't make much sense to me and the way they were revealed was too hurried and clearly suggests that the details of any story here are just an inconvenient obligation to fulfill along the way to creating adrenaline filled action sequences. Leaving the theater one is left with more memories and thoughts of specific moments or scenes rather than a sense that you've been told some kind of story. With all the out of work writers in Hollywood you'd think you could find someone who could tell a plausible and interesting story spanning an entire 2 hours. Tom, I'm pretty sure I can come up with something a lot better than this for MI-4, so call me and let's talk. That said I enjoyed the movie. The action scenes were intense, well executed and generally pretty original and the movie moved along well.

If they choose to do an MI4 I would welcome that, although I think a bit more work on the storyline would pay huge dividends. I can definitely recommend the movie as a good fun action movie and not much else. I didn't expect much else and thus was not disappointed.


Before I wrap up here, let's speculate about what could be done for MI-4. What if they put together an IMF (Impossible Movie Force) team to direct it. I'd like to see a Dream Team of directors/writers put together. My list would be David Mamet, Robert Altman, John Woo, and Steven Soderbergh. Would they accept this mission? Can they save this movie franchise before it self-destructs? Wouldn't you pay $8.50 just to see what that movie would look like?

Recommended for Adults: Yes. A fun action movie.
Recommended for Kids: I think the PG-13 rating is appropriate and would caution parents with children under 13 to use careful judgement as there is some sadistic violence and a (mild) sex scene.
Overall: Well done action movie with solid action and acting, but a weak ending.

Movie Review: Tristan and Isolde

In the first few minutes of Tristan and Isolde, I thought that it was going to be a poorly-done knock-off of Mel Gibson’s Braveheart. The movie unfolds as a medieval period film about warring kingdoms with a big battle at the beginning. I soon realized, that this wasn't intended to be a battle movie like Braveheart; rather, it was a tragic love story which takes place in an adeptly portrayed pre-Christian England.

This movie is a retelling of an ancient legend that has many variations and has inspired other well-known stories such as Romeo and Juliet or the love triangle of King Arthur, Guinevere and Lancelot.

At the time the movie takes place, England and Ireland are enemies. Only Ireland is united under one king whereas England is broken up into tribes. If those tribes were to unite, then they will be much too strong for Ireland to dominate, so Ireland’s king does his best to sabotage England’s unification efforts. Lord Marke, played by Rufus Sewell (A Knight’s Tale, Arabian Nights), is the tribe leader most likely to unite England as king. He brings the orphaned boy Tristan, played by James Franco (Spider-man 1, 2 & 3) into his household where he raises him as a son.

The adult Tristan goes to battle and is believed to be dead after he is cut by a poisoned blade. He is sent away in a funeral boat but his boat ends up beached on the coast of Ireland, where he’s found by the King’s daughter, Isolde, played by Sophia Miles (Thunderbirds, Underworld). Isolde nurses him back to health in secret, and they inevitably fall in love.

Eventually, Tristan returns to England and is sent to a tournament to win the prize in the name of Lord Marke. Little does he know that the prize is the hand of Isolde in marriage.

One of the things this movie did very well was the getting-to-know-you sequences between Tristan and Isolde. There was a natural relationship that formed as she nursed him back to health. When the time came for Isolde to marry the king that Tristan was loyal to, the angst that the two of them feel, pitted against their need to be separated because of duty was very powerful. This movie effectively shows us these struggles instead of just telling us that they exist. It’s funny, but during this portion of the movie, I kept thinking about how good Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones could have been, if the Anakin and Padme sequences had been structured the same way that Tristan and Isolde’s sequences were.

One of the things that I really liked about this story is that Lord Marke is really a good guy! Isolde even begins to appreciate him after a short time. This makes what Tristan does even more despicable. It was nice to see the main characters actually struggling with the decisions as they attempted to balance duty and honor against their love for each other.

In the end, I was sad about the the fates that Tristan and Isolde were consigned to and for the mistakes that they made. I would classify this as a great morality tale. Often we believe that our feelings should rule over us always, and that if something “feels right” it must be good. But we need to always remember, that honor and duty aren’t just social conventions— they’re reminders that our choices and actions actually impact the lives of others, and ultimately, we're responsible for much more than just our own peace and safety.

Movie Review: Over the Hedge

Over the Hedge
Rated: PG
Voices by: Bruce Willis, Garry Shandling, Steve Carell, Wanda Sykes, William Shatner, Nick Nolte, Thomas Haden Church, Allison Janney, Eugene Levy, Catherine O'Hara, Avril Lavigne.
Directed by: Tim Johnson and Karey Kirkpatrick

This movie begins with RJ (Willis) sneaking into the cave of a hibernating bear named Vincent (Nolte) and attempting to steal his enormous stash of food. Caught in the act and accidentally destroying the pile as he tries to get away he is given a week to restore the trash or Vincent will kill him. RJ next runs into a little "family" of assorted animals led by Verne (Shandling). While the family has been hibernating for the winter their forest has been surrounding by a huge sprawling suburban development and a large hedge. RJ recruits them all to forage for food over the hedge. What they don't know is that RJ plans to take the fruits of their labor and turn it over to Vincent. What RJ doesn't expect is to find the real meaning of family.

This is a very well done movie. The writing and acting is very good. The story is well conceived and is perfect for children (I saw it with my 5 year-old), but has enough substance and genuine funny moments to capture adults. It's nothing deep to be sure, but it's certainly a fun way to spend an evening. All of the characters are fun and I think almost everyone will enjoy the character Hammy (Carrell).

My recent review of The Wild complained about the animation of the animals. The animation here looks much better and the scenes are well constructed and interesting. There is nothing particularly remarkable to say about the movie other than that it really holds together, entertains its audience and delivers on what you'd expect.

Recommended for Adults: Definitely fun entertainment.
Recommended for Kids: Definitely.
Overall: Very well done movie.

Movie Commentary: Superman Returns

New Superman Returns trailer (View Here)

The new Superman Returns trailer was recently released and it has risen my anticipation for the film 10-fold. Yes I know there has been some guff about this film for some time, but I have a hard time not looking forward to it. Are the lead actors too young? Perhaps. Is Kevin Spacey merely “channeling” Gene Hackman? Possibly. Do I really care? Not at all. You see people, this is a re-imagining of the Superman films which intends to pay homage to and respect the first 2 Superman films but also restart the franchise. Or, you could just consider it a film being made by someone who loves the material and felt it was a movie he had to make. I’m speaking of course about Bryan Singer, a talented and capable director who has proven his ability to craft a great story (The Usual Suspects) and handle a sci-fi / comic book film (X-Men 1 & 2). When given the opportunity to direct the new Superman movie, Bryan walked away from the X-Men film franchise that he helped to establish and took on the story of The Last Son Of Krypton. This was a project very close to him and one that he could not turn down. Some people are not fans of Bryan’s work, especially the X films, and that’s to be expected. There’s nothing wrong with people not liking an artist's work, that’s why there are many different artists.

I have a lot of faith in this film being what it has to be. The original Superman film, and it’s less than perfect sequel, will always be favorites of mine. The first film took a very dramatic look at a story filled with fantasy and superpowers. But Superman has stood for very human things for as long as he’s been around. While his abilities are the things that set him apart from the rest of humanity, it’s his human qualities, and his conviction to adhere to the homespun qualities instilled in him by his adoptive parents, that make him special. But we can aspire to those same qualities as well. We cannot fly, but we can be truthful. We are not bulletproof, yet we can stand for the things we believe in. We do not have x-ray vision, yet we can see the injustices in the world and have compassion and understanding for those having awful things done to them. Our love and caring for our fellow man can be as powerful as Superman. Of course we all know this is a fictitious tale, yet the lessons we can glean from it are all too real. This is a film, and a story, that is filled with truth and justice, “The American Way”, and for a few hours this summer, that’s a story that’s worth hearing, and one that can’t be told enough. I look forward to having fun at this film, and feeling good about what it says to me. I hope you all find the same message in this film. Have fun!

Movie Review: Red Eye

I’m really not a big horror movie buff. Actually I think the last time I watched one was back in my high school days, but I have seen A Nightmare on Elm Street and I do know that Wes Craven has become as synonymous with horror films as Alfred Hitchcock was with mysteries and thrillers. So when I saw that Wes Craven had directed Red Eye, an airplane thriller that seemed like a departure from his regular style of slasher films, I was intrigued.

Red Eye is about a young woman named Lisa Reisert, played by Rachel McAdams (The Notebook, Wedding Crashers), who is a hotel manager flying home to attend her grandmother’s funeral. In the airport she meets the charming Jackson Rippner, played by Cillian Murphy (Batman Begins, Cold Mountain), who we quickly learn has orchestrated their meeting in order to leverage some assistance from her in carrying forward his dastardly plot by threatening to have someone kill her father, played by Brian Cox (X-Men 2, The Bourne Identity) if she doesn’t comply.


What I really liked about this movie was how well it portrayed the main character, Lisa, getting wrapped up in a terrible, at times heart-wrenching situation and we the viewers get to ride along to witness how or if she’ll get out of it unscathed. I really enjoyed how the bulk of the movie took place in their seating compartment on the plane. At times it was very claustrophobic which added to the trapped feeling that Lisa must have been experiencing, and I thought it amplified the tension.

I did have one problem with the movie, though, and this might be a result of Wes Craven’s movie making style, but at times it seemed that Rachel McAdams, Cilian Murphy, and Brian Cox were the only actors who took the movie seriously. Everyone else seemed to know they were in a Wes Craven movie and were giving the typical B horror movie campy performances that at times I thought were a little distracting. Sometimes the feel of the movie changed so drastically, that it seemed like I was watching two different movies at the same time. The performances of the three main actors were so strong that I wouldn't say the movie was ruined by the random campiness, I just thought that it could have been so much stronger if everyone was as strong.


Overall I'd say this is a good movie for adults. it has brief strong language and a little violence, but mostly it’s a tense thriller that kept me on the edge of my seat until the very end. If you’re up for a fun ride, this just might be the ticket for you… just make sure that you’re not on a plane when you decide to give this movie a shot.

Movie Review: Aeon Flux

Expect nothing, and you'll never be dissapointed?

So, what happens when you hear overwhelmingly bad reviews about a movie, but you decide to watch it anyway? Can you really objectively watch a movie and decide for yourself if it was good or bad? Are your expectations so low that no matter how bad it actually is, anything good in it will be a treat?

That was the situation that I found myself in when sitting down to watch Aeon Flux, starring Charlize Theron (North Country, The Italian Job) as the title character. This movie had received such bad reviews from so many of the movie critics that I listen to, that I was expecting it to be a disjointed and laughable movie that was big on effects and action, but shallow on plot. But what I found was a movie with an intriguing premise and a storyline that occasionally had me guessing and always held my interest.

Aeon Flux is set in a future time when the last city on Earth is ruled by the family of the person who developed the cure for the plague that wiped out the rest of the world’s population. Aeon is a member of a group of rebels called the Monicans who are trying to overthrow the government. Aeon is sent on a mission to assassinate the “chairman” of their ruling council, Trevor Goodchild, played by Martin Csokas (Kingdom of Heaven, The Bourne Supremacy), when she experiences some things that cause her to abandon her mission and seek out answers to the bigger mysteries of their community.


From what I’ve heard, this movie is based on an MTV animated series that I had never heard of before this came out. But while watching it, I could tell that it was following a very defined method of visual story telling, with many of the camera angles and scene compositions being very artistic and interesting to look at. I also noticed many instances of limited dialogue in this movie, which added to the visual artistry.

It seems to me that Director Karyn Kusama (Girlfight) really seemed to understand what this story was about, and seemed to be able to give it a cohesive feel to it throughout. I would imagine though, that this type of movie isn’t for everyone. As I said, it’s very stylized and could be seen as “artsy” or “weird” by many.

If I may digress, this is why movie reviewers sometimes frustrate me; to think that one person can give opinions on every movie out there and dictate which ones are good and which ones are bad. Really, movies are subjective. I’ve grown up watching movies like Logan’s Run, Planet of the Apes, Star Wars, Star Trek, and so on. A movie like Aeon Flux easily fit into those genres and I really enjoyed it. But I know many people who don’t like those movies that I just listed. And so I can tell you now that if you are one of them, you won’t like it.

All in all, I enjoyed this movie. Sure it had its flaws, but what movie doesn’t? I certainly don’t think that it deserved all of the negative press that it got and I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys futuristic movies about dystopian societies.

Movie Review: Corpse Bride

Corpse Bride
Rated: PG
Voices by: Johnny Depp (Victor), Helena Bonham Carter (Corpse Bride), Emily Watson (Victoria), Tracey Ullman, Paul Whitehouse, Joanna Lumley, Albert Finney, Richard E. Grant, Danny Elfman
Directed by: Tim Burton and Mike Johnson

I remember seeing the preview for the Corpse Bride in the theater and finding myself surprised at wanting to see it, not being a big Tim Burton fan (sorry my favorite colors aren't black and gray). I then completely forgot about it, and it came and went while pulling in a decent $50M+ at the box office. I chipped in my own $3.99 for pay-per-view this weekend and was very pleased.

The story is taken from a 16th century Jewish fairy tale where a young groom enroute to his wedding sees a stick coming out of the ground that looks like fingers and jokingly puts the ring on the finger and says his wedding vows only to find himself...


In this version Victor (Johnny Depp) is the shy son of a nouveau riche fish merchant who has been promised to Victoria (Emily Watson), the beautiful daughter of an aristocratic, but dead broke, family. Neither have met, until the day before the wedding at the rehearsal. They fall in love, but Victor just can't get his part of the ceremony right in the rehearsal and the priest threatens to call it off. Victor walks out of town into the woods to practice, and like the fairy tale, finds himself married to a corpse. Emily (Helena Bonham Carter) is a very lovely looking corpse with a maggot living behind her right eye. She is thrilled to be married after all this time (after being killed by her own fiancé just before marriage) and they find themselves in the land of the dead. The Land of the Dead is colorful, bright, and vibrant compared to the dark and cold world above. It's one happy place with musical numbers and a big wedding party. Naturally Victor tries to call this off and escape back to the land of the living. No one down below sees any reason why he can't be married to a corpse even if he is still a bit squishy.

Now I won't tell the whole story, but I will say that it's an enjoyable ride. The music is downright catchy and the story moves right along. The movie is a technical masterpiece of stop-motion animation. Much more rewarding visually and in every other way than the hyper-realistic animals in the recent "The Wild" for instance. The characters have real depth and I found myself genuinely engaged in their story. There are many memorable bits of dialog and imagery, like when Emily gives him a wedding present, that is the bones of his dead dog, that suddenly comes to "life".

Recommended for Adults: Sure, I think you'll like it.
Recommended for Kids: Sure, there are a few scary moments, but nothing too serious, my 2-year old daughter enjoyed it.
Overall: Very nice movie.

Movie Commentary: Star Wars

Now that I’m contributing to this site, I thought this would be a good time to talk about something that's on my mind quite often. Actually it’s literally something that I’ve been “into” since I was 7-years old. The only problem is, that if I start talking about it, I’m liable to start rambling like an idiot and not make a lick of sense. But I still feel inclined to share my thoughts and feelings, so I’ll try to use restraint and limit myself in my ramblings.

The subject I’d like to discuss today is Star Wars. I know, I know. What could I possibly contribute to the discussion of Star Wars that could possibly be a valuable contribution to the discussion? Well, maybe a little history is in order—

I first saw Star Wars in the theaters as a child in 1977. It was truly a childhood altering (and probably geek generating) experience. From then on, the movies, toys and magazines defined most of my childhood. I stopped counting at 30 viewings of the original Star Wars movie when it came out on videodisk back in the early 80’s. I owned all of the Marvel Star Wars comic books. Suffice it to say, I loved Star Wars.

The original Star Wars (now commonly refered to as Episode IV: A New Hope) was and still is my favorite of them all. I agree with many out there, that The Empire Strikes Back is probably the best of all the movies, but it’s the original Star Wars that truly impacted me, and as I’ve heard, the world of moviemaking in general.

Then in 1997 came the Special Editions. I thought that was exciting! All of the movies back in the theaters with enhanced special effects! The idea was a fun one that seemed like a good idea—a chance for poor George Lucas to fix some of the mistakes or omissions that had been nagging him for so long. Great! But the only problem is (turning on restraint) with all of the added special effects, there were also alterations which to the general public might have seemed like no big deal, but to someone like me who has watched these movies so much that they’re engrained in my consciousness, they’re like looking at a beloved painting, like the Mona Lisa, and discovering that someone decided that she would look better with her teeth showing when she smiled, and went ahead and changed it. And it’s not even the fact that they went ahead and made the change that’s the problem, but they’ve gone and destroyed all versions of her with lips closed because it’s thought of as “incorrect.”

One example I have of this is the change where he made Greedo shoot at Han Solo (Harrison Ford) first in the Cantina. Come on! That’s part of what was great about Han! He was a scoundrel—a pirate! You don’t think that if he thought that Greedo was getting ready to shoot him that he wouldn’t shoot first? Of course he would.

One more example of a change that annoys me is when R2-D2 is spat out of the swamp by whatever the thing was that was trying to eat him. In the original version, Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) cleans the slime off of R2 and says, “You’re lucky you don’t taste very good!” —a witty, light hearted remark that I rather liked. In the Special Edition that line of dialogue was changed to, “You were lucky to get out of there.” Taking out a chuckle generating line and making it quite forgettable.

I could go on and on, but this really isn’t the place for it. The sad thing is that there is no plan as of now (that I’ve heard of) to release the original versions of the Original Trilogy on DVD, so it appears that those versions that are so firmly etched onto my memory, are going to have to just stay there for a little while.

When the buildup to the Prequels started, I loved the new interest that resulted. Again there were new toys being made and there were a lot of promotional items being given away in restaurants and stuff like that everywhere. I must admit, the collector in me went a little crazy with this.

When Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace hit the theaters, I was psyched! I went to the midnight show and watched it two more times the following day. To this day I don’t hate it as much as most people seem to, probably because of all of the hype that made that a generally exciting time. I didn’t even mind Jar Jar Binks so much, because I think that the Ewoks in Return of the Jedi were more annoying than him.

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones didn’t stay on my good side for long, though. The first time watching it was enjoyable, but the parts where Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) is supposed to be wooing Padme (Natalie Portman) made me cringe when I first saw it, and really annoy me now. I also thought the special effects weren’t as good as should be expected.


Regarding Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, many people thought that this movie “saved” the prequels and provided a much needed link to the Original Trilogy. In my opinion, though, it has virtually ruined the saga for me.

You see, my problem is that I have young children that I would love to share what I so deeply loved as a child with them, but I’m very cautious about what they watch. Lucas has made it clear that these movies are supposed to be made for children, so why did he make this movie so intense that it garnered a PG-13 rating? I really think that if there had been a little more subtlety shown, much of the carnage could have just been hinted at and it could have been much better.

But more than that, there’s a matter of principle that I have a problem with. The redemption of Darth Vader at the end of Return of the Jedi worked, in part, because we didn’t really witness the wicked things that he had done. The only real witness of his actions came from a comment from old Ben Kenobi, saying that he “helped the Emperor hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights.” But in this movie we actually see him carrying out the act of hunting down and killing innocent Jedi. And by innocent, I’m including the killing of children (which thankfully is not shown). After watching this, I find myself not wanting Darth Vader to be redeemed at the end of Return of the Jedi! I don’t believe that the single act of killing the Emperor could have possibly paid for what he did to all of those undeserving people.

Sometimes I find myself wishing that the Prequels had never been made. Other times I just ignore my the problems I have an watch them for the nostalgia for the things that I loved as a kid. I'm sure if enough time goes by and I revisit the prequels, I won't be bothered as much by things as I am and maybe I'm just being too sensitive—I don't know. What do you think?

Movie News: Meet the Robinsons

With all of the negative comments about the floundering creative soul of Disney over recent years, there’s one bright glimmer of hope for me that would have been encouraging even if it hadn’t been recently announced that Disney was acquiring Pixar. And that glimmer of hope is the forthcoming animated film Meet the Robinsons, which is due out Spring 2007.

I think that most of the best Disney films come when they have choice, time-tested source material to draw from, and in this case their source material is the book A Day with Wilbur Robinson, by William Joyce—a fun adventure where a young boy goes to see his best friend Wilbur and gets a grand tour of Wilbur’s zany family.

Joyce seems to have a good relationship with Disney and was the creative mind behind Rolie Polie Olie, the computer animated show for preschoolers on The Disney Channel. One of his other books, George Shrinks, was turned into a traditionally animated series on PBS Kids. Both shows are favorites in my household.

Because of the simple plot of the Robinsons book, Disney has added quite a lot of detail to flesh out a complete movie storyline. There are also reports that the creative folks at Pixar have been doing some last minute touch-ups on plot points to clean up some things that have been lacking—yet another reason to be relieved at the proposed merger.


So according to the Disney press release, the story in the movie is about an ambitious young inventor named Lewis who creates a Memory Scanner that he hopes he can use to retrieve early memories of his mother and reveal why she put him up for adoption. Before he can use it, though, the dastardly Bowler Hat Guy steals it. Lewis then meets Wilbur Robinson who whisks Lewis away in a time machine where Lewis meets the Robinson clan and tries to hunt down the Bowler Hat Guy. In the process, Lewis discovers the amazing secret of his future family.


I do have one concern about the story though, and that’s the story thread about adoption. As adoptive parents, my wife and I try to be as open with our daughters as we can so there’s no big surprise some day when they find something out. But I get concerned when there are stories or movies that introduce a negative stigma about being adopted—making it seem like adopted children are loved less because someone decided to give them away. I know from personal experience that this is not true. Both of my daughters’ birth mothers were very loving and it was no easy decision to do what they did. I can only thank them every day for the rest of my life. I’ll be checking this movie out before showing it to my daughters because I don’t want them to think that being adopted is bad.


Other than that, I think this sounds like a fun tale and a good family adventure. You can view the trailer online and see that the animation really looks top notch. I look forward to seeing this movie and hopefully having my concerns assuaged.

Movie News: Star Trek 11

It seems that another SciFi franchise is jumping on the prequel bandwagon. I must admit that I was sorry to hear of the cancellation of Enterprise with Scott Bakula. I actually enjoyed that series. I was even willing to overlook the fact that much of the technology appeared to be more advanced than the original Star Trek. After all, it was close to 40 years ago. To their credit though, the writers for Enterprise did attempt to put in technology limitations, such as extremely limited use of the transporter.

So, that is why I am optimistic about an upcoming Star Trek feature film slated to be released in 2008 and distributed by Paramount Pictures. According to Daily Variety and other news reports that picked up the thread, there is as yet no title for this eleventh film in the Star Trek universe, but it will feature scenes about Kirk and Spock meeting at Star Fleet Academy and their first mission into space.


Another reason to be optimistic is director J.J. Abrams, creator, writer, director, and producer of the two ABC series Lost and Alias and writer on Forever Young and Regarding Henry. I have really enjoyed the intrigue, characterization, and pace of Lost, but I reserve the right to withhold final judgment on Star Trek 11 until I see his upcoming movie Mission Impossible III staring Tom Cruise and Philip Seymour Hoffman (did anyone else loathe MI-2 as much as I did?). Joining Abrams in writing the Star Trek script will be Alex Kurtzman and Robert Orci, writers for MI-3, The Legend of Zorro, and several episodes of Alias, among other things.

It's also interesting to note that Rick Berman is not involved in this project. Berman has been with Star Trek since The Next Generation and has been involved with every Next Generation movie. Some people attribute the decline of the Star Trek franchise to him. Those same people often credit the late Michael Piller with infusing new excitement into The Next Generation series, starting with season three.

Piller came into Star Trek, The Next Generation in season 3 and was also heavily involved in the creation of Deep Space Nine, but that's where his Star Trek tenure ended. Piller also gave Ronald D. Moore, the developer of the new Battlestar Galactica series his start in the television industry when he brought Moore onto The Next Generation. Piller then utilized the talents of both Ira Steven Behr and Moore in the creation of Deep Space Nine. It will be interesting to see if this theory proves to be true with this Star Trek film.

If Star Trek 11 can focus on story rather than trying to dazzle us with amazing special effects, like some other prequels, this could be an interesting movie. And this comes from someone who is not that much of a fan of the original Kirk series. It could be interesting to see some background into Kirk and Spock (I have always been interested in the way Kirk passed his Kobayashi Maru test). It could also be fun to see a cameo of an aging Captain Archer or perhaps some appearances from other actors from the original series such as George Takei.

I remain optimistic, but I would love to hear your thoughts.

Movie News: Ratatouille

Collective fans of Disney, Pixar and Brad Bird will no doubt rejoice to hear the news of the upcoming Ratatouille, the story of a rat who lives in a Parisian restaurant—though I don’t know if the French will be keen on the idea that we think there are rats in their fine eating establishments.



Ratatouille features the combined directorial efforts of Brad Bird (The Incredibles, The Iron Giant) and Bob Peterson (one of the writers and Mr. Ray on Finding Nemo, voice of Roz on Monsters Inc.). The only confirmed cast member is Brad Garrett (Everybody Loves Raymond) as the eccentric chef who works in the restaurant, and an assumed cast member will be John Ratzenberger who has appeared in every Pixar production from the very first Toy Story where he was the voice of the piggy bank, Ham, to The Incredibles where he voiced The Underminer.

Also worthy of note is that the music is set to be scored by Michael Giaccino who created the memorable soundtrack for the Incredibles and also does the impressive music for the hit shows Lost and Alias on ABC.

Not much else is known of the production yet. I’m sure they’re waiting until the upcoming Disney/Pixar release Cars has had its run before flooding the newswires with news of this latest production.

This is likely to be billed as a Disney production, since the acquisition of Pixar should be complete by the speculated June 29, 2007 release date, but just in case the acquisition fails for some reason, Disney and Pixar signed a one-picture extension to the distribution deal that was set to end with Cars. In this deal, Pixar would pay for all of the production costs and pay a fee to Disney for distribution of the film. One of the apparent differences, though, is that Pixar would own the film—as opposed to previous deals where Disney retained a certain degree of rights that would/will allow them to make sequels without the involvement of Pixar.

Movie Review: Nicholas Nickleby

"They came to see that family need not be defined merely as those with whom they share blood, but as those for whom they would give their blood."

Since watching Pride and Prejudice a few days ago, I’ve been in the mood to watch more movies made from classic British novels. One of my favorites of these movies—and one of the most painfully overlooked—is 2002’s Nicholas Nickleby, written for the screen and directed by Douglas McGrath who also wrote for the screen and directed 1996’s Emma, starring Gwyneth Paltrow.

The novel of Nicholas Nickleby was originally written by Charles Dickens around 1839 and is about young Nicholas, played by Charlie Hunnam (Cold Mountain, Green Street Hooligans) who, along with his mother and sister, is left destitute upon his father’s untimely death. They travel to London to visit their wealthy uncle, played by Christopher Plummer (The Sound of Music, Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country), hoping to appeal to his feelings of familial obligation and throw themselves upon his mercy. Their uncle proceeds to let them think that he is generously giving them support and favors, but in the end, he is only serving his own selfish desires with no though for their well being at all.

An early, but major, storyline is what takes place at Dotheboy’s Hall, a boarding school in the country for young boys run by Mr. Wackford Squeers, played by Jim Broadbent (Moulin Rouge!, The Borrowers). It is to here that Nicholas is sent by his uncle as an opportunity to earn a living. The abuse portrayed at the boarding school actually occurred in Dicken’s days and was one of his main catalysts for writing this novel, but however, by the time it was published, these “cheap” Yorkshire boarding schools were no longer much of a problem.

If there is a recurring theme in Charles Dickens Writings, it’s that of how society looks upon and treats the poor and destitute. An interesting thing about this story, however, is that the Nicklebys don’t start out poor, but it's through the unfortunate occurrences which happen at the beginning that they end up in a position of need, and it’s through those circumstances that they see how cruel the world can be. It’s also through these trials, that when Nicholas begins to stand up for himself and his family is when he begins to see all of the wonderful things the world has to offer and how much control over his own destiny he can truly have.

One of the most touching storylines in this movie is between Nicholas and a young crippled boy he befriends at Dotheboy’s Hall named Smike, played by Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot, King Kong). Smike was sent to Dotheboy’s for schooling years before, but when payment for his education stopped coming, he was put into hard service at the school. It is in witnessing the abuse and neglect of Smike that transforms Nicholas into a character who acts rather than one who waits to be acted upon.


The performance of Jamie Bell as Smike is well worth making note of. The way he contorts his body and changes his countenance makes you really believe he is as crippled as Smike. By the end, Smike is one of the most pitiful and endearing characters I’ve ever seen on screen—his history and fate, deeply moving. It's really a shame he wasn't nominated for an Oscar for it.

There is a richness and wit to the language of Charles Dickens that is so prevalent in this movie adaptation. I’ve not read the novel, but can judge from the other books by Dickens that I have read that much of the dialogue is either taken directly from the novel, or Douglas McGrath is a master at capturing the tone that Dickens had.

Nicholas Nickleby is rated PG for “thematic material involving some violent action and a childbirth scene.” The “childbirth scene” is actually just a shot of a very newborn baby against a black background and then a shot of the umbilical cord being cut. There’s no labor or real birthing involved and it all goes by in less than 5 seconds at the very start of the movie.

This is a great story of love, loyalty, and standing up against injustice in defense of the helpless. It wasn’t until my 8-year-old daughter wandered downstairs while I was watching it that I realized that this would actually be suitable for older children. They might struggle with the language and there are a couple of scenes showing brutality towards children, but overall, there are some great lessons to be learned. If your children are up to it, this movie may serve them well. Indeed, if this movie has gone overlooked by you, as it has by a great many people, you owe it to yourself to see it.

Movie Review: The Wild

The Wild
Rated: G
Voices by: Kiefer Sutherland, Janeane Garofalo, Richard Kind, Eddie Izzard, Greg Cipes, James Belushi.
Directed by: Steve "Spaz" Williams


"The Wild" is the newest Disney animated film to hit theaters. All I can say is - smart move on buying Pixar. It's not that the film is bad, it's got all your basic formula things down just fine - it just lacks any real magic. The basic premise is that Ryan the Lion lives in the zoo and wants to go discover The Wild as it has been described to him by his Father, Samson the super-lion. Samson has made himself into a super-hero in the eyes of his son with his outlandish stories of bravery and courage.

Ryan pouts about being stuck in the zoo and living in the shadow of his father and runs away and climbs into a shipping container that some pigeons said would take him to the wild. He falls asleep in the container and wakes up just as it is locked and put on a truck to go back to Africa (I guess). Of course he changes his mind at this exact moment, but it's too late. (No you did not fall down a rabbit-hole and end up in a review of Madascar - I'm describing The Wild here). Meanwhile Samson discovers that Ryan is trapped in this crate and runs after him to rescue him, along with his buddies that include a snake, a giraffe, a squirrel, and a 90% irritating koala bear from London named Nigel. I think you can more or less imagine the rest, although the part where a herd of wildebeasts worshipping Nigel as a God did surprise me. Surprise - not amuse, let's be clear about that.

One thing standing between this film and magic is that the major character Samson is basically a cowardly Lion who has been living a lie, and Ryan is a whiny little brat. While these character flaws are ultimately resolved through normal heroics, there was never a sense for me of relating to them or wanting anything for them. Nigel, the funny Koala has some genuinely funny moments, but his gags and lines miss more often than they hit.

I found the animation a bit irritating, but I can't quite put my finger on what was wrong. There were portions that I thought were very well done and others that weren't. It seemed to me that certain motions weren't fully executed and seemed to have segments of the motion missing. In many ways the detail was excellent, but overall it seemed a bit unsteady to me.


All that said, if you are under the age of 10 I can definitely recommend the film as it does have some charm, some good music, and you will probably find Nigel 0% irritating and 100% funny. My 8 year-old loved it. If on the other hand you are a self-respecting adult you will want to like this film, you really will, but you just won't be able to - or you will love it and will prove that I'm simply cold-hearted and jaded. Please comment and let me know.

Recommended for Adults: Not for adults.
Recommended for Kids: They'll have a great time.
Overall: If you have kids, wait for DVD or pay-per-view, turn it on and leave the room.

Movie Review: Pride and Prejudice

"He's been most inconvenient since I swore to loathe him for eternity."

I love period movies—movies that take us out of the present day and transport us through the years into a world that acts, talks and dresses differently from the way we do today. And period movies usually tell stories that just couldn’t work in our time, whether it’s because of governments, or ideologies, or mores, I feel that characters seem to be a bit more limited in what they can do, just because I am living in the same world they are and as such I feel a bit more informed in the directions the story can go.

You might think that in bringing this up, that I’m talking about movies set in Victorian England, or the Old West America, but this also very much relates to science fiction movies. Star Wars is one of the greatest period films ever, as are all of the Star Trek TV Shows and movies. It’s the removal of the story from modern sensibilities that allow the storytellers to introduce concepts and ideas that are foreign to us.

In the case of a futuristic period film, the filmmakers have limitless possibilities. They are able to make up separate histories and cultures. As is seen in Joss Whedon’s masterful series Firefly and the feature film Serenity where he jumped 500 years into the future and created a universe where civilization lived and spoke much as they did in the wild west, with a fusion of the Chinese culture and sayings.

So where is this rant coming from? Well, I just recently watched Pride and Prejudice starring Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen. I don’t know why I didn’t make more of an effort to watch it in the theater, but I thought it was a real treat.

Pride and Prejudice is based on a novel by Jane Austen and is about a girl named Elizabeth Bennet who meets a grumpy Mr. Darcy and vows to hate him for all eternity because of his rudeness. As the story progresses, Elizabeth learns details about Mr. Darcy that… well, that would be telling, now, wouldn’t it?

Of all the stories I’ve read and all of the movie versions of these kinds of films, for some reason I’ve missed this one, so as my first exposure to this story, it was a good experience. Though I will admit that there were parts of it that seemed rushed, or that made me feel like we just missed something that would have explained the situation better, but was cut because of time. Maybe people who are more familiar with the story can fill in the blanks and don’t miss it, but it really made me want to either read the book or watch a more complete version of it, like the BBC Miniseries.


As a period film, this movie didn’t fail to please me, the costumes were beautiful, the cinematography stunning, and the language was elegant—though as always, I needed a warm up time to tune my ear to it before I felt like I was catching all that they were saying.


It was during Pride and Prejudice that I realized what it is about movies that I like the most—their ability totally remove me from the modern world into a time and place completely foreign and fanciful. Whether it’s 150 years ago or 200 years into the future.


One more thought about Keira Knightley: I don't know if everyone is aware of this, but she played the queen's decoy in Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (pictured above in the foreground, Keira Knightley is on the left and Natalie Portman is on the right). Anytime you can see Natalie Portman as Padme, the handmaiden, that's Keira in the royal dress and makeup. So I just have one question—which of the two now is the bigger star? It sure seems that you see Keira Knightley a whole lot more nowadays than Natalie. Is there a stigma associated with the Star Wars Prequels? Maybe she's so unrecognizable in the makeup that people just haven't made the connection to Star Wars.

Movie Review: Chicken Little

"Modern Mallard says that avoiding closure can lead to molting, and I'm already small and on top of that I don't think I can handle being bald!"

It always seems like whenever a movie is made for the sake of something other than the story, it never fails to disappoint. For example, is there any doubt in anyone’s minds that the Star Wars prequels were little more than special visual effects portfolio pieces for Industrial Light and Magic? If you need proof, just listen to the commentaries or watch the behind the scenes stuff and take note of how often the story is talked about in comparison to the effects and production.

I had this in mind as I sat down to watch Disney’s Chicken Little. This was the first major effort by Disney to produce a CGI animated movie solo instead of in conjunction with their long time associate Pixar. Because of this, I couldn’t help but compare it to the Pixar productions as I watched it and by the end I decided it was more a showcase of their CGI animation capabilities than a movie they decided to make because the story was worthy.

But why? It had all of the cool, trendy CGI graphics and animation. What I found it lacking was heart and a well thought out story. From the trailers, one would believe that it’s all about an alien invasion, but I thought that it took too long to set up that situation and then when we finally do see the aliens, they’re gone before you know it.


The story is basically this: a little misfit chicken, named Chicken Little (shocker), is ostracized by the town he lives in because of his seemingly false claim that the sky was falling which sent the town into frenzy. In his efforts to prove him self to the town he finds that what he wants most is to prove himself to his father.

That alone sounded great to me. I really had high hopes that I’d be surprised by this movie and find that it was actually a touching father/son relationship flick. The problem is they just let it hang. It seemed like towards then end that they must have written in the script, “comedic alien invasion,” and let the gags fly. When it came to resolving the father/son conflict, there was no real bonding between father and son, but it was just that the dad turned into a pushover wanting to cater to every whim of his son’s. To me, that was unsatisfying.


But did I hate it? No. Much of it was very funny! As a comedy it worked well. I liked the premise, it just seemed like it was made up of parts of 4 different movies and it could have been great if it had just focused on one. I also like movies that are funny, but end up making us feel good about ourselves and the experience we had, it seemed like Disney was just in it for the laughs in this one.

I wish they could have focused more on one of the included plots to make this movie a bit more cohesive. Let’s see, is it a story about a misfit kid and the heartache of feeling that the whole world is against you? Is it about an ingenious kid whose incredible dexterity and ability to improvise saves the town? Is it about a father who doesn’t know how to identify to his son because he’s not as coordinated or athletic as he (his father) used to be? (A point that doesn’t jive with some of the stunts we see Chicken Little pull off throughout the movie) Is it about an alien child who accidentally gets abandoned on earth and has to be rescued by local kids and given back to the alien parents before interstellar war breaks out? (Hmm, sounds like E.T.) Any of these stories would have been fun to explore with the others becoming sub plots, but there’s really no clear main story for the movie.


But my kids enjoyed it. And I didn’t find anything in it that was offensive, except for the obligatory burp humor to make kids giggle. If I had to compare it to another movie, I would say it’s a lot like Dreamwork’s Madagascar—big on laughs, but only so-so on heart.

Movie Review: Dragonslayer

"If he's ready to lay a dragon in its grave, he's nothing to fear from me."

I've installed a theater in my basement, well at least I've smoothed out a 9-feet wide wall and a wired-in surround system. I don't have a projector of my own yet, but fortunately I am able to borrow one from work. Watching DVDs on it is VERY cool and it's nice to have a cinematic experience with movies that haven't been on the big screen for a long time.

Since I have this new home theater, I thought it only fitting to start revisiting movies that I really enjoyed when I was younger. The first movie I thought I'd try out is 1981's Dragonslayer starring Peter MacNicol. This is a movie that I saw in the theater when I was 11 years old (do the math and you'll know how old I am) and I loved it! I watched it many times on video shortly after, but I haven't seen it as an adult. I came across the DVD on the store shelf the other day and thought that now would be a good time to pick it up and watch it on the big screen.

The story is pretty straightforward, a kingdom is being terrorized by a dragon, so a group of people set out to find a sorcerer to dispose of it. When the older, more experience sorcerer is unable to pass the “test,” his apprentice takes up the call and tries to fill his master’s shoes.

In addition to MacNicol, who plays the young sorcerer's apprentice, Galen, this film also features an excellent performance by Sir Ralph Richardson (Time Bandits, Greystoke: The Legend of Tarzan, Lord of the Apes) as the senior sorcerer, Ulrich.


At first I was worried that my adult eyes wouldn't think it was as good as I thought it was when I was young. I was also concerned that the special effects would seem cheesy compared to the new CGI stuff that's so common nowadays. Well, my fears were unfounded. I found the story and the writing just as interesting as before, and George Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic (ILM) produced special effects were terrific! Even the stop-motion animation of the dragon was smooth. I was also pleased that the filmmakers were able to tell the story without inserting a humorous sidekick for comic relief. There are funny moments, but they never seem out of place.

One thing that stuck out to me was how far we got into the movie before we got a clear view of the dragon instead of just a claw here and there. I'm sure that it was because of the budget constraints that made them have to limit how often we see the dragon in the movie, but I thought it served the movie well—adding a lot to the mystery and suspense. I'm sure that if it was made today with CGI, we'd be seeing the dragon all the way through the movie, but I think that would have ruined some of the tension and the awe that we feel when we finally see it.


On a side note, Star Wars fans might be interested to see a younger Ian McDiarmid (Darth Sidious/Senator Palpatine/Emperor Palpatine of the Star Wars franchise) who plays Brother Jacopus, a Christian preacher who comes around once magic and sorcery seem to be fading away.

According to IMDB, this was Peter MacNicol’s first role. Occasionally his performance suffers from putting on an English accent, but otherwise he embodies the young, naïve sorcerer-in-training that he is playing. I only wish his hair wasn’t so curly.

I would call this a severely underrated and under watched movie. If you have any interest in fantasy movies of any kind, this movie is a must see!

Coming Soon: Cars

If there’s any studio that I’d be willing to give a “free pass” to—meaning that I’ll go see anything they make whether or not the initial previews interest me—that would have to be Pixar Animation Studios.

Pixar is the only studio I can think of that fosters an environment conducive to developing a great story above everything else. True, they are on the cutting edge of CGI technology, and have developed many of the tools used by many in the industry, but when one of their movies is on I never sit back and ogle at their technical prowess, I’m enthralled by the story.

Another thing that I really love about Pixar, is that it never talks down to the kids and never thinks that crude humor and innuendo are the only ways to keep adults who are watching the show interested. I’m never worried that my kids are going to start saying words they shouldn’t (like I was from Dreamwork’s Antz) or that they were going to ask me to explain what something meant (like why Pinocchio wearing women’s underwear was such a big deal in Dreamwork’s Shrek 2). Pixar’s movies are sincerely funny and sophisticated.

Why am I bringing this up? Because Pixar’s new movie Cars is due to be released in the theaters June 9th, 2006 and I’m not really all that keen on the concept of the story. I can’t help but think, as I watch the trailers, that this movie is going to seem like a 90 minute Chevron talking car commercial.



But, I will see it and I’m expecting to thoroughly enjoy it. Why this dogged optimism you may ask? Well, I guess it’s in large part faith in the director, John Lasseter. He was the one responsible for Toy Story, Toy Story 2, and A Bug’s Life. But not only that, if you listen to Brad Bird’s commentary for The Incredibles, you’ll hear how many times John Lasseter told him to do what it took to tell the story—that was his primary concern even if it meant increasing the budget or the running time. If you recall, The Incredibles was a remarkably long movie for an American made animated film.

So, from a Disney press release, the story of cars goes like this: “Lightning McQueen (voice of Owen Wilson), a hotshot rookie race car driven to succeed, discovers that life is about the journey, not the finish line, when he finds himself unexpectedly detoured in the sleepy Route 66 town of Radiator Springs. On route across the country to the big Piston Cup Championship in California to compete against two seasoned pros, McQueen gets to know the town’s offbeat characters – including Sally (a snazzy 2002 Porsche voiced by Bonnie Hunt), Doc Hudson (a 1951 Hudson Hornet with a mysterious past, voiced by Paul Newman), and Mater (a rusty but trusty tow truck voiced by Larry The Cable Guy) – who help him realize that there are more important things than trophies, fame and sponsorship.”



Sounds like it could be a heartwarming tale if you ask me, and with it’s G-rating, definitely something I won’t think twice about taking the family to.

On a side note, my interest in the future of Disney animation took a great leap when I heard that Disney was acquiring Pixar. But not only that, John Lasseter is the new Chief Creative Officer of their animation studios. Already there has been a stop put to production of many projects. Hopefully all of the retooling will be a good thing and we may even see traditional animation return? I hope so. Milt Kahl, one of the early Disney animation veterans said in the 70s, that the problem with Disney features was that “Walt had to go and die.” Walt Disney was the heart and soul of everything Disney put out. Hopefully John Lasseter will be just the person to bring it back.

Movie Review: Fun with Dick and Jane

I noticed the other day that "Fun with Dick and Jane" will be released on DVD next week. I thought it fitting to write a review of the film, not because I love the underdog and it was panned by other critics, but it's the last time I found myself laughing until it hurts in the theater. Never mind I was 10 years older than everyone else in the theater and the only movie I can remember seeing in the theater since that was "Syriana". Let's forget all that.


"Fun with Dick and Jane" is a remake of the 1977 movie of the same name starring Jane Fonda and George Segal. This time around we have Tea Leoni (Jane) and Jim Carrey (Dick) starring. Dick works for Enron, well not Enron exactly, well yes it is pretty much Enron exactly. Dick is promoted to be in charge of communications and his first appearance on network TV coincides with the company's "Enron-ness" becoming apparent to the world and the stock collapses live with him on air. Let's just say it doesn't go well and like everyone else he loses his job. He arrives home to find that his wife has also quit her job on account of the big promotion. Finding a job is no easy matter, especially when your communication skills have recently been memorably demonstrated on national TV.

Gradually Dick and Jane find out how good they had it as they gradually see their possessions repossessed including their lawn. One of my favorite threads of the story is their relationship with their son and their Mexican housekeeper/nanny. I thought this was some truly inspired writing.

It's not a perfect movie by any means. The robbery scenes fall a little flat and the ending is a bit too nice and tidy and designed to be a bit too feel good, but that's okay if that's what you know you are getting yourself in for. It's a nice simple comedy with some really funny moments and I would highly recommend it for what it is. Definitely worth a pay-per-view or DVD rental.

Movie Review: Slither

More fun than a barn full of space slugs

What can I say, I really enjoyed watching Slither. I’m a big comedy/horror movie fan and this one fit that bill nicely. There were some great one-liners and tons of perfect comedic timing from nearly everyone in the film. The plot, present only to allow the fun stuff to happen, is simple. Alien crashes on earth, infects some poor bastard, mutates into some big slimy thing and begins to take over the town. This movie has heaps of influence from some other great films including The Thing, Tremors, Evil Dead and Toxic Avenger (there are plenty I’m sure I’ve left out). There are several references to some of these films, like naming the High School Earl Basset High (Fred Ward’s character in Tremors), a department store named R.J. MacReady (after Kurt Russell’s character from John Carpenter’s The Thing), and even the music from Predator being referenced when the “posse” arms themselves to go hunt the creature.

One of the best things about this movie was seeing our friend Nathan Fillion again. For those of you who don’t know, Nathan played captain Malcolm Reynolds in the short lived television show Firefly and it’s feature film debut Serenity. Both are excellent and worth watching if you haven’t already. Nathan has a wicked sense for comedic timing and facial expressions and has got an every man persona that is very comforting and inviting. The most obvious difference between the character he played on Firefly and Bill Pardy, the police chief in Slither, is that Mal Reynolds was a bit more of a scoundrel and Bill is a big softy who’s only slightly macho.



The other great performance in Slither is that of Gregg Henry who plays the town mayor Jack MacReady (yet another reference to The Thing). He is a foul mouthed, boisterous, s.o.b. and a hilarious character. His dialogue might be a bit blue for some people, but he delivers it so deliciously that you can’t help but laugh. Eagle-eyed fans may recognize him as having a part in an episode of Firefly titled “The Train Job”.


Slither is a bit gory and bloody, as one would expect from an alien invasion type film, but for me none of it is even remotely convincing or disturbing and merely adds to the absurdity of the film. In a good way, of course. One of the few scenes that I will mention is when they find a woman named Brenda in a barn after she’s been missing for several days. When the alien first infects Grant Grant (no that’s not a typo but is the name of the character brilliantly played by Michael Rooker of Mallrats and Days of Thunder), he finds he has an insatiable appetite for raw meat; an affliction that ends up affecting all the victims. Once he infects Brenda, with the intent of having her give birth to more creatures, she eats so much that she literally takes up the entire barn where she is being held. When Bill and the posse open the door and find her, she is simply a giant ball of fat and flesh with only her head, hands and feet barely protruding from the girth. after they approach her and the group take a moment to try and comprehend what they are seeing, Bill cautiously says "So Brenda, uh what's going on here?”. That scene is a good litmus test as to whether you’ll enjoy Slither or not.

A few more notes of interest, Slither was written by James Gunn who is responsible for both the Scooby Doo movies (I’ve never seen them and have no intention of seeing them) and he’s also married to Jenna Fischer who plays Pam Beesley on the television show “The Office”. Jenna also appears in Slither as the ditzy police radio dispatcher Shelby who, while communicating with Bill, is asked a question to which she replies by nodding her head. After a few seconds of silence on his end, Bill finally asks her if she’s nodding again. Shelby says “Oops, sorry, I forgot...”. This is the type of humor that populates the film and it’s just simply fun.

During the final scenes of the film, Bill has a chance to be a hero. I won’t divulge the details, but I’ll just say that things don’t turn out the way he expected. It’s funny that after such a buildup to that moment you expect him to pull it off, and when it doesn’t the reaction from Bill is absolutely priceless; worth the price of admission alone. Slither may not sound like something you want to see, but if you’re interested in the least it’s definitely worth checking out. It’s certainly not a movie for everybody, especially little ones (duh...) but it’s a helluva good time. 90 minutes well spent. P.S., stay through the credits...